evolution scientifically disproved

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_02.html

It's called the cambrian explosion, o'well since people are morons that believe a bunch of darwinism fanatics it wont matter.

"The author has also produced various works on Zionist racism and Freemasonry and their negative effects on world history and politics. The Zionism criticised by the author in his books is the baseless claims of Zionist extremists pretend to world sovereignty, regard other human beings as worthless entities, maintain that the Jews are the chosen people and that God is theirs alone."

Basically the author is a turkish anti-semite, who studied ART at university: he has no scientific training. He is also a devout muslim, I.e. he is basically a turkish version of an American fundie creationist.

Attacking the author doesn't make the writings he produces false.  Typical for evolutionary supporters to avoid the arguments and make personal attacks /sight

>>3
Also, disproving evolution does not prove that any other theories are true.

Evolution is an old meme, it was debunked a long time before this guy added his two cents.
 
<----- /politcs/ is that way.

Muslims are all fucking stupid.

>>3

We don't like to argue with idiots. Your topic is a complete lie, this has nothing to do with science.

gb2/church/ jesusfag

Their can be only be one and only ONE answer......


















aleins.

>>3
Even assuming his assertions about the cambrian explosion are true, the most that can be proven is that evolution did not contribute to the cambrian explosion.  Evolution is a statistical process that (almost) necessarily occurs.

Little is known about events happening so long ago anyway.  Do we really know that all lifeforms came from a single cell?  Not really.  Might life have come from different cells that came into existance separately?  Possibly.

This is why Turkey will never join the EU: its muslim faggotry is too ingrained its culture to join our elite secular clique.

Its too bad that YES we do have fossils from the pre-cambrian era. The cambrian explosion is just a sudden expansion in types of species. Of course, pre-cambrian life would mostly be invertebrates, so fossilization would be few and far between. Of course, it doesnt matter if you can show that the cambrian explosion is somehow "divine" because it doesnt disprove evolution. All species at that point in time are now extinct and their descendents evolved.

So the article isn't about disproving evolution. It's debunking Darwinism. And I don't think most of it really makes a convincing argument against Darwinism. Way too vague on a lot of things, too. But even assuming it's all true, it still doesn't change my opinion on the whole issue. Some parts of Darwin's theory are probably wrong. But I think the main idea, that evolution played and plays a major part in our world, is true. But nowhere does it say that evolution refutes the existence of a God. Why can't a deity work through natural means? Evolution with a holy catalyst? I don't think the two theories contradict each other. But that's just my idea.

The article assumes that morphological distance is proportional to genetic difference and that the rate of evolution ought to be constant.  There are plenty of sound explanations for the explosion without debunking Darwinism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium even though I don't agree with this theory in its entirety, it works well here)

You people are too hung up on Darwin.  This is /sci&math/ not /historical personality&celebrity/.  No scientist has ever claimed Darwin was infallible.  So who cares if he was wrong in the details.  The point of Evolutionary Theory is not that Darwin is our new God, but rather that life evolves and that God doesn't keep it in fixed forms.  The end.  Get over your Darwin obsession, fundies!

I wants lots and lots of some delectable pot!

Marijuana MUST be legalized.