Darwinism

No, really, this is what their headline reads (if not redacted): “Chinese microscopic fossil find challenges Darwin’s theory” Apparently, they are allowed to talk that way in China. Fancy. The Cambria explosion proved that most major animal phyla were fully developed in this relatively short time. This troubled Darwin because the absence of transitional forms has always been problematic for his theory. Darwin had hoped that these intermediates would appear in the fossil record but this has not happened. Evolutionists say that these “missing links” were either too small or too soft-bodied to be fossilised in the pre-Cambrian layer. What is more troubling for Darwin’s theory is the Chinese discovery of microscopic fossils of soft sponge embryos in this pre-Cambrian Read More ›

Keith brought in an argument he claimed to be a “bomb” for ID. It turned out to be a failed suicide mission where the only person that got blown up was Keith. (Please note: I am assuming that life patterns exists in an ONH, as Keith claims, for the sake of this argument only.  Also, there are many other, different take-downs of Keith’s “bomb” argument already on the table.  Indulge me while I present another here.) In my prior OP, I pointed out that Keith had made no case that nature was limited to producing only ONH’s when it comes to biological diversity, while his whole argument depended on it.  He has yet to make that case, and has not Read More ›