Darwin: Far From Science

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....
 
Science = communism. You heard it here.


I find that there is a pattern in the responses to these OPs by the Leftists and simpletons....although that may be redundant.

a. Something or things in the OP cause them to be irate.
b. Like the proverbial eunuch in the harem, while they rush in to dispute the OP...'they'd like to, but they just can't.'
c. They can do nothing but either attempt some vapid insult that falls short of clever....
..or...
...as this moron did....
...claim I said something I clearly did not.


To spoon-feed this moron.....Darwin's theory has become not science, but a tool of the Left.
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Here's the difference between Science and Religion.

Science continues to be true whether you believe in it or not.

Religion, not so much.

See this guy? His name was Zeus. And millions of people really thought he was sitting on top of Mount Olympus

Jupiter_Smyrna_Louvre_Ma13.jpg


Then people stopped believing in him. Did he cease to exist when people stopped believing in him, or did he never exist in the first place?

Now evolution, that happened. The fossils would be there whether we dug them up or not.
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Here's the difference between Science and Religion.

Science continues to be true whether you believe in it or not.

Religion, not so much.

See this guy? His name was Zeus. And millions of people really thought he was sitting on top of Mount Olympus

Jupiter_Smyrna_Louvre_Ma13.jpg


Then people stopped believing in him. Did he cease to exist when people stopped believing in him, or did he never exist in the first place?

Now evolution, that happened. The fossils would be there whether we dug them up or not.



Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?


Excellent.


Can you get this notarized?
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Here's the difference between Science and Religion.

Science continues to be true whether you believe in it or not.

Religion, not so much.

See this guy? His name was Zeus. And millions of people really thought he was sitting on top of Mount Olympus

Jupiter_Smyrna_Louvre_Ma13.jpg


Then people stopped believing in him. Did he cease to exist when people stopped believing in him, or did he never exist in the first place?

Now evolution, that happened. The fossils would be there whether we dug them up or not.



"Science continues to be true whether you believe in it or not."

Here's yet another fool confusing science with dogma.

Exactly the sort of fodder the Leftist love having around.
 
A "Theory" is an explanation of reality, in the absence of definitive proof.

For example, since it is not possible to "see" the innards of an atom - to see how it actually exists and functions - scientists have been theorizing on the subject for centuries. As new information and observations come to light, the theory is adjusted to meet the new knowledge, and now we have reached the point where "we" believe we fully understand the Atom.

No one has ever witnessed Evolution. But the Theory explains almost everything observable about the natural world. There are some holes in it - some even pointed out by Darwin - but still, it does explain plants and animals in way that is almost understandable.

The trouble with such states of affairs is that, for people who have not studied it closely, Evolution takes on many aspects of a RELIGION.

With a RELIGION, the "believer" has a theory about the nature of the universe, and when the Believer finds something that seems to contradict the religious theory, he will either (a) investigate and modify the theory to allow for the new information, (b) condemn the proponent of the new information as a "heretic" and ignore or deny the information, or (c) abandon the theory. As a gross example, when people first understood the archaeological evidence for the great age of the earth - which directly contradicts the Biblical story - they either modified the theory (said that Genesis was allegorical and not historical/scientific), or condemned the proponents as godless heretics.

With Evolution, when you point out something that contradicts the Theory, the non-scientists in the crowd will simply call you some version of a heretic, because they cannot refute the evidence. This is not productive, but I suppose it's the best they can do. Ann Coulter has written many articles and an entire book chapter (I don't recall which one) on refutations of Evolution; but of course she is the biggest heretic of all.
 
A "Theory" is an explanation of reality, in the absence of definitive proof.

For example, since it is not possible to "see" the innards of an atom - to see how it actually exists and functions - scientists have been theorizing on the subject for centuries. As new information and observations come to light, the theory is adjusted to meet the new knowledge, and now we have reached the point where "we" believe we fully understand the Atom.

No one has ever witnessed Evolution. But the Theory explains almost everything observable about the natural world. There are some holes in it - some even pointed out by Darwin - but still, it does explain plants and animals in way that is almost understandable.

The trouble with such states of affairs is that, for people who have not studied it closely, Evolution takes on many aspects of a RELIGION.

With a RELIGION, the "believer" has a theory about the nature of the universe, and when the Believer finds something that seems to contradict the religious theory, he will either (a) investigate and modify the theory to allow for the new information, (b) condemn the proponent of the new information as a "heretic" and ignore or deny the information, or (c) abandon the theory. As a gross example, when people first understood the archaeological evidence for the great age of the earth - which directly contradicts the Biblical story - they either modified the theory (said that Genesis was allegorical and not historical/scientific), or condemned the proponents as godless heretics.

With Evolution, when you point out something that contradicts the Theory, the non-scientists in the crowd will simply call you some version of a heretic, because they cannot refute the evidence. This is not productive, but I suppose it's the best they can do. Ann Coulter has written many articles and an entire book chapter (I don't recall which one) on refutations of Evolution; but of course she is the biggest heretic of all.



"With Evolution, when you point out something that contradicts the Theory, ..."

Absolutely!

Gonna do exactly that.....

Coming right up.....stay tuned.
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....
Yes, scientists -- as in, virtually all of them -- consider evolution to be a fact. No, you are not presenting any challenge to this fact or to the theory of evolution to copy/paste creationist pap on a message board.
 
The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.
 
The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.
Natural selection is only one of many mechanisms of evolution.
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....
Yes, scientists -- as in, virtually all of them -- consider evolution to be a fact. No, you are not presenting any challenge to this fact or to the theory of evolution to copy/paste creationist pap on a message board.



And yet another dunce checks in.

The OP stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....
Yes, scientists -- as in, virtually all of them -- consider evolution to be a fact. No, you are not presenting any challenge to this fact or to the theory of evolution to copy/paste creationist pap on a message board.



And yet another dunce checks in.

The OP stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!
No, idiot, I am not going to litigate the truth of evolutionary theory with you, nor will I dignify or legitimize your stupid, evil dogma with a direct response. You nuts have already been regulated to the status of deviants, pounding on the dome from the outside. Pound away, loser.
 
The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.



1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost
 
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....
Yes, scientists -- as in, virtually all of them -- consider evolution to be a fact. No, you are not presenting any challenge to this fact or to the theory of evolution to copy/paste creationist pap on a message board.



And yet another dunce checks in.

The OP stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!
No, idiot, I am not going to litigate the truth of evolutionary theory with you, nor will I dignify or legitimize your stupid, evil dogma with a direct response. You nuts have already been regulated to the status of deviants, pounding on the dome from the outside. Pound away, loser.


Translation...." I can't."

Therefore, you acquiesce to the truth of every single item in the OP>

The OP stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.



Verified correct by the ineptitude of that dunce.
 
The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.



1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost
Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.
 
The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.



1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost
Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top