The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Maybe you should learn the basics of the subject first. Then come back.

So all those chocolate-flavoured insect bars you devour every week don't count?

I talking about the transition from pre-Cambrian biota to Cambrian biota. Most of the organisms that appeared in the Cambrian have no recognisable evolutionary ancestors in the pre-Cambrian.To make matters worse for the theory of evolution, most of the Ediacaran biota became extinct.No wonder, then, that Richard Dawkins said,
"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."How can all those missing links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian possibly form a nested hierarchy?

Your atheist fairy-tale, your pseudo-science and your lying rhetoric don't fool me. Sorry.

And yet, ALL the evidence still supports the Theory of Evolution, and you have nothing but foolish Pedo Cult Bullshit.

quote:

---

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history

---

Yes. They look just planted without evolutionary history. But looks are deceiving as is your taking the quote out of context. That's the way things looked but that is not the way it was if you had bothered to quote further.Lying for crackers, again, Dredge. Bad Altar Boy.

Richard Dawkins said,
"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."Pray tell, how does "without any evolutionary history" amount to a nested hierarchy?

ID 786 Once again your Darwinoid fantasies are exposed. There is a MASSIVE gap between ediacaran and cambrian radiations that evolution can't (sensibly) explain away ... the predicted evolutionary links between ediacaran and cambrian are virtually non-existent ..."A series of dark, craggy pinnacles rises 80 metres above the grassy plains of Namibia. The peaks call to mind something ancient — the burial mounds of past civilizations or the tips of vast pyramids buried by the ages.The stone formations are indeed monuments of a faded empire, but not from anything hewn by human hands. They are pinnacle reefs, built by cyanobacteria on the shallow sea floor 543 million years ago, during a time known as the Ediacaran period. The ancient world occupied by these reefs was truly alien. The oceans held so little oxygen that modern fish would quickly founder and die there. A gooey mat of microbes covered the sea floor at the time, and on that blanket lived a variety of enigmatic animals whose bodies resembled thin, quilted pillows. Most were stationary, but a few meandered blindly over the slime, grazing on the microbes. Animal life at this point was simple, and there were no predators. But an evolutionary storm would soon upend this quiet world.Within several million years, this simple ecosystem would disappear, and give way to a world ruled by highly mobile animals that sported modern anatomical features. The Cambrian explosion, as it is called, produced arthropods with legs and compound eyes, worms with feathery gills and swift predators that could crush prey in tooth-rimmed jaws."What sparked the Cambrian explosion? | Nature

Useless claim and also false.

Ask Darwinoid scientists to explain something as simple as the evolution of the hollow fangs of venomous snakes, for example, and they're lost for a sensible response.Ask them to explain how evolution produced the connection between said hollow fangs
and the snake's venom glands ... again, no sensible response. Yet these scientists claim to "know' how evolution works. They're such bs-artists and con-men.

Atheists (and most of the scientific community) attribute magical powers to mindless molecules ... lifeless mud turned in human beings!! Wow!!!Pure superstition .... masquerading as science.

FYI, I was never an altar boy. When I was ten, I applied to become one ... but when the "recruiting" nun asked me if I was willing to get up at 6am to serve at the early Mass, I said "No". That put an end to my altar-boy aspirations.

All they will do, is saying "natural selection" did it, at some point in evolution history.

Exactly. Translated it means "We don't know"

Are the two of you really saying that because we don’t know everything down in intricate detail that, then, we know nothing? And if we can’t show you specifically what proteins did exactly what in some ultra specific case then the reality of the event didn’t happen?Are you two that intellectually dishonest? Is this another “lies for jesus” stance that makes creationists look so bad?