Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A complete and utter Fake .DARWIN'S BLUFF
Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend
So I thought , "can I get somebody to tell the obvious lie, you know "complete and utter fake" " --because when you see how thorough the evidence is , you've got the old Logic rule, that one counterexample destroys an unqualified statementA complete and utter Fake .
See Miles Mathis for his complete destruction
,Parts one to five with more to come -- all publihed very recently .
Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.DARWIN'S BLUFF
Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend
The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.
View attachment 932377
aaah, but that was an innovaton upon Darwin, HE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did he extend evolution to include the universe.Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.
www.newscientist.com
Paywall but irrelevant anyway. My point is that showing Darwin was flawed in no way undercuts the FACT of evolution from a common ancestor.aaah, but that was an innovaton upon Darwin, HE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did he extend evolution to include the universe.
Get an education. He completely rejected any explanation of where that first living thing came from . So do you
DON"T YOU REMEMBER
the cover story in Europe's leading science magazine, New Scientist, admitting that Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.
the evidence for natural selection is so strong that a counterexample must be suspected of fraud or mistaken identity.Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.
Well, that ;is even easier to dismissPaywall but irrelevant anyway. My point is that showing Darwin was flawed in no way undercuts the FACT of evolution from a common ancestor.
actually Western Civilization until recently reversed thatEvolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY
dissentfromdarwin.org
Evolution occurred, it can’t be deniedactually Western Civilization until recently reversed that
Natural THeology shows there must be a Creator, by reason.
And evolution, which has had 3 major revisions just in my life, is a theory and a declining one by all scientific accounts
Scientists – Dissent from Darwin
The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren’t terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument.
Below is an article to get started:
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
=======================
I have scientific training, you do not. Okay
So I thought , "can I get somebody to tell the obvious lie, you know "complete and utter fake" " --because when you see how thorough the evidence is , you've got the old Logic rule, that one counterexample destroys an unqualified statement
Incorrect.Well, that ;is even easier to dismiss
1)There is not just 1 evolution !!!!
There is only evolution. It is we who draw a generally arbitrary line and say this is a new species or it is not. That is for our convenience only and that arbitrary line does not really exist.2) Until YOU distinguish micro-evolution (the breeds of dogs)from Macro,No one knows what you are defending
Disproved by who? You cite Gould but he was always a proponent of evolution, he just argued about the timeframe of events, not whether they occurred or not.3) And 'common ancestor' is the surely disproved aspect of any evolulutionary theory. Even Gould said that the Cambrian explosions destoryed gradualist views of evolution
ASctually you couldn't be more wrong. He was the teacher of Kurt Wise and was the one who saved his PhD when the Harvard faculty wanted to deny it because he was a Creationist. To which Gould said (of Wise) "He knows the theory as well as anyone he just thinks it is wrong" So if you want to pick your 'real' PhD's Gould is your enemy not your friendIncorrect.
There is only evolution. It is we who draw a generally arbitrary line and say this is a new species or it is not. That is for our convenience only and that arbitrary line does not really exist.
Disproved by who? You cite Gould but he was always a proponent of evolution, he just argued about the timeframe of events, not whether they occurred or not.
If you read the article you'd see that Darwin's tree was fine as far as it went. Computers finished the job in the 1990s.aaah, but that was an innovaton upon Darwin, HE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did he extend evolution to include the universe.
Get an education. He completely rejected any explanation of where that first living thing came from . So do you
DON"T YOU REMEMBER
the cover story in Europe's leading science magazine, New Scientist, admitting that Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination
How silly. FIrst of all he himself admits he can find absolutely no reason for the first organism.HE POSITS its existenc.eIf you read the article you'd see that Darwin's tree was fine as far as it went. Computers finished the job in the 1990s.
You fault Darwin because he drew this:
instead of this:
Until YOU distinguish micro-evolution (the breeds of dogs)from Macro
I have scientific training, you do not. Okay
This may come as a shock to you but in the many decades since Darwin lived, science has made lots of progress in the field.How silly. FIrst of all he himself admits he can find absolutely no reason for the first organism.HE POSITS its existenc.e
You may feel the Cambrian explosion causes problems for evolution but that is a minority opinion of those with a bias to confirm. Sorry.And we must if we have one tree ,we must have many to justify the now many major Cambrian sites found in the world
: This flourishing, called the Cambrian explosion, took place within about 25 million years. Fossils from the period have been preserved in rocks at more than 50 known sites worldwide, the most famous of which is Canada's Burgess Shale, discovered in 1909.
What a surprise that science is complex and that complexity grows as we learn more. Doesn't negate the basic premise that horses evolved:And so many of those sub-trees have been utterly overthrown. The Horse for example
"The popular notion that horses started off the size of small dogs and grew progressively bigger is now shown to be false. From the tooth-fossil evidence, MacFadden found that during an explosion in horse diversity some 20 million years ago, many species got smaller as well as larger"
I remember as a child people talking all haughty like you do and showing that stupid chart
View attachment 932629
I don't care what you believe but stop the lying,(though my debunking will lose you a lot of respect you never deserved)
