Darwin To The Rescue

[PoliticalChic]

19. The greatest popularizer of evolution was Stephen Jay Gould.

Once again he reinforces what I have written about the false thesis of Darwin....

The theory, while never proven, performs its greatest service to Karl Marx and his enthusiasts.

A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’,



Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007 (includes reply to Gould’s widow).




"PHIL GASPER describes the contributions of Marxist biologist Stephen Jay Gould.

BIOLOGIST STEPHEN Jay Gould died of cancer last month at the age of 60.

Gould was one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of his generation and the most talented popularizer of science in the past century. His monthly column, "This View of Life," ran for 300 consecutive issues in Natural History magazine from 1974 to 2001. It used examples, ranging from church architecture to baseball (Gould's other passion), to explain the complexities of biology."
A scientist of the people

 

[abu afak]

….of Karl Marx.
The month of October had great significance some 180 years ago, when Charles Darwin wrote this in his Autobiography:
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work..."

That sounds like the basis of Meritiocracy and competitive Capitalism, not "Karl Marx."
Another Bizarro thread/attempt at guilt by association from our Mentally Defective brainwashed Kweationist.

At age 29, Darwin had his theory, a work in progress. As of this day, it remains a work in progress, yet to be proven. From the start, it was the support for Marx’s ideas, which also, at the cost of millions of lives, remains yet to be proven.

I have News for you Moron... Science doesn't deal in "proof", only math does.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
150 years and an explosion of New Sciences.
None contradict it, and all relevant either are consistent with, or outright help confirm it.
(DNA, Isotopic dating, etc)

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​

`

"Science doesn't deal in "proof","


Nothing more need be said.....you are a self-identified imbecile......bet you're a government school grad.



Not conjecture, opinion, 'feelings'......experiments leading to conclusions.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



As proven....PROVEN....throughout this thread......there is no proof of Darwn's theory, and there is evidence that it is false.
Yet Marxist need it to advance their fraudulent views, hence it is taught as 'true, fact, proven'....and imbeciles buy it like it was on sale.

You didn't show any mention of the word "Proof" in 'the scientific method' Bimbo.
No theory has "proof".

Scientific theories are affirmed over time. ie, Evolution is a Fact because it has overwhelming EVIDENCE and been affirmed with many sciences.
If it were a court case, that evidence would be called "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and lead to a conviction.
But science demands 100%, not just 99.99999 "beyond reasonable doubt." so it doesn't use the word.
Only math meets the definition of "proof" by the absolute and abstract use of numbers.

Your initial Ignorant post, now turned into re-enforced Dishonesty by your new Failure.
There was no use of "proof" in Your citation of the 'Scientific Method.'

At this point, is gravity still a theory or law? : askscience

In Science, a theory is the Strongest statement we can Confidently make about the universe. Historically, labels of "law" were given out when phenomena were rigorously tested and shown to hold up, but the point is that a physical description of the universe is (1) entirely valid in the regimes where it has been rigorously tested and (2) cannot be considered inherently valid in areas where it has not been experimentally verified.

With that in mind, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a much better representation of our physical world than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Newtonian gravity is perfectly valid under certain regimes (low energy, macroscopic scale), but is no longer valid at higher energies, whereas general relativity can give good, verifiable predictions in the same regime that Newtonian gravity does, as well as at much higher speeds....
​

Now it's back to Mensa for me, and back to Fundie Church for you.
`


`

 

[PoliticalChic]

….of Karl Marx.
The month of October had great significance some 180 years ago, when Charles Darwin wrote this in his Autobiography:
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work..."

That sounds like the basis of Meritiocracy and competitive Capitalism, not "Karl Marx."
Another Bizarro thread/attempt at guilt by association from our Mentally Defective brainwashed Kweationist.

At age 29, Darwin had his theory, a work in progress. As of this day, it remains a work in progress, yet to be proven. From the start, it was the support for Marx’s ideas, which also, at the cost of millions of lives, remains yet to be proven.

I have News for you Moron... Science doesn't deal in "proof", only math does.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
150 years and an explosion of New Sciences.
None contradict it, and all relevant either are consistent with, or outright help confirm it.
(DNA, Isotopic dating, etc)

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​

`

"Science doesn't deal in "proof","


Nothing more need be said.....you are a self-identified imbecile......bet you're a government school grad.



Not conjecture, opinion, 'feelings'......experiments leading to conclusions.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



As proven....PROVEN....throughout this thread......there is no proof of Darwn's theory, and there is evidence that it is false.
Yet Marxist need it to advance their fraudulent views, hence it is taught as 'true, fact, proven'....and imbeciles buy it like it was on sale.

You didn't show any mention of the word "Proof" in 'the scientific method' Bimbo.
No theory has "proof".

Scientific theories are affirmed over time. ie, Evolution is a Fact because it has overwhelming EVIDENCE and been affirmed with many sciences.
If it were a court case, that evidence would be called "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and lead to a conviction.
But science demands 100%, not just 99.99999 "beyond reasonable doubt." so it doesn't use the word. Only math meets the definition of "proof" by the absolute and abstract use of numbers.

Your initial Ignorant post, now turned into re-enforced Dishonesty by your new Failure.
There was no use of "proof" in Your citation of the 'Scientific Method.'

At this point, is gravity still a theory or law? : askscience

In Science, a theory is the Strongest statement we can Confidently make about the universe. Historically, labels of "law" were given out when phenomena were rigorously tested and shown to hold up, but the point is that a physical description of the universe is (1) entirely valid in the regimes where it has been rigorously tested and (2) cannot be considered inherently valid in areas where it has not been experimentally verified.

With that in mind, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a much better representation of our physical world than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Newtonian gravity is perfectly valid under certain regimes (low energy, macroscopic scale), but is no longer valid at higher energies, whereas general relativity can give good, verifiable predictions in the same regime that Newtonian gravity does, as well as at much higher speeds....
​

`

What I did was disprove Darwin's thesis.


The fossil record disproves the conjecture that simply organisms develop random changes that become reproducible and accumulate into new species.

The record shows the very opposite.


Here, jot this down, dope:

op·po·site

1. diametrically different; of a contrary kind.
   "a word that is opposite in meaning to another"
   
   Similar:
   conflicting
   
   
   contrasting
   
   
   incompatible
   
   
   irreconcilable
   
   
   inconsistent
   
   
   antithetical
   
   
   contradictory
   
   
   clashing
   
   
   contrary
   • 
     

noun

1. a person or thing that is totally different from or the reverse of someone or something else.

And this:

dis·prove
/disˈpro͞ov/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. prove that (something) is false.

You are to intelligent thought what the kazoo is to classical music.

 

[abu afak]

What I did was disprove Darwin's thesis...
...

LOL

Then Go claim your Nobel Prize..

or go back to your 7-11 Adventist church/cult.

You ******* lunatic.

You're a Cult member who needs De-tox/debriefing in an institution.


`


`

 

[alang1216]

I used to wonder how dumb some folks are, to be unable to connect the dots.....

....you explained it, here:

Asked if you are a government school grad, who has never read a book not assigned by the neo-Marxist school system.....
“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated

There are almost 100,000 public schools in the US. How many have you attended?

Why?

You seem to disparage public schools even those they are locally run. I was wondering what is the basis of your bias?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I used to wonder how dumb some folks are, to be unable to connect the dots.....

....you explained it, here:

Asked if you are a government school grad, who has never read a book not assigned by the neo-Marxist school system.....
“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated

There are almost 100,000 public schools in the US. How many have you attended?

You seem to disparage public schools even those they are locally run. I was wondering what is the basis of your bias?

Why?

Short answer.....you're why.

Another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.

Both intelligence and honesty have been beaten out of your character.

 

[alang1216]

You seem to disparage public schools even those they are locally run. I was wondering what is the basis of your bias?

Short answer.....you're why.

Another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.

Both intelligence and honesty have been beaten out of your character.

How do you know my 'education' system was left or right? I don't believe I ever said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

20. "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), a watchdog group committed to exposing and ridiculing any group that questions the strange paradigm of Darwinism.




In 1984, evolutionary molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, a very revealing book describing in detail the very weaknesses in evolution that Dr. Scott and the NCSE maintain do not exist. For example, Denton could not imagine a Darwinian scenario that could possibly have produced the first bird--complete with continuous lungs connected to air sacs, and with flight feathers--that did not sound like utter fiction. He is not the only reasoned voice who would dissent from Scott's misinformed doxology. Anti-creationist Barbara Stahl wrote an informative book in 1974 entitled Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution.

“Human evolution” has also recently taken a pummeling from within. Formerly rock-solid examples of our alleged ape-like ancestors have been removed, without fanfare, from the classic transitional ape-to-man series that is still found in public school textbooks. "DNA makes clear that [Homo erectus] was almost certainly a dead end and not our ancestor."5

Even "Lucy" is no longer a missing link:

Lucy's kind occupied only a side branch of human evolution. A. afarensis evolved into the relatively small-brained, large-jawed robust australopithecines but didn't contribute to the evolution of modern people, says anthropologist Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University.” No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?

“If evolution is truly a valid scientific theory, it should be able to easily weather a reasoned inquiry as to its weaknesses and strengths. The irrational and visceral reaction by secular scientists to this suggestion says otherwise.” Ibid.

 

[alang1216]

20. "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), a watchdog group committed to exposing and ridiculing any group that questions the strange paradigm of Darwinism.




In 1984, evolutionary molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, a very revealing book describing in detail the very weaknesses in evolution that Dr. Scott and the NCSE maintain do not exist. For example, Denton could not imagine a Darwinian scenario that could possibly have produced the first bird--complete with continuous lungs connected to air sacs, and with flight feathers--that did not sound like utter fiction. He is not the only reasoned voice who would dissent from Scott's misinformed doxology. Anti-creationist Barbara Stahl wrote an informative book in 1974 entitled Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution.

“Human evolution” has also recently taken a pummeling from within. Formerly rock-solid examples of our alleged ape-like ancestors have been removed, without fanfare, from the classic transitional ape-to-man series that is still found in public school textbooks. "DNA makes clear that [Homo erectus] was almost certainly a dead end and not our ancestor."5

Even "Lucy" is no longer a missing link:

Lucy's kind occupied only a side branch of human evolution. A. afarensis evolved into the relatively small-brained, large-jawed robust australopithecines but didn't contribute to the evolution of modern people, says anthropologist Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University.” No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?

“If evolution is truly a valid scientific theory, it should be able to easily weather a reasoned inquiry as to its weaknesses and strengths. The irrational and visceral reaction by secular scientists to this suggestion says otherwise.” Ibid.

Denton is the father of ID and has been strongly criticized by evolutionists. Denton could not imagine a Darwinian scenario that could have produced the first bird--complete with continuous lungs connected to air sacs, and with flight feathers but other biologists have no such problem.

As science finds new examples of hominids the tree of life gets redrawn. This is how science works, it is its strength not its weakness. Whether Homo erectus proves to be a dead end or not in no way changes the fundamental truth of our descent from a common ancestor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

20. "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), a watchdog group committed to exposing and ridiculing any group that questions the strange paradigm of Darwinism.




In 1984, evolutionary molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, a very revealing book describing in detail the very weaknesses in evolution that Dr. Scott and the NCSE maintain do not exist. For example, Denton could not imagine a Darwinian scenario that could possibly have produced the first bird--complete with continuous lungs connected to air sacs, and with flight feathers--that did not sound like utter fiction. He is not the only reasoned voice who would dissent from Scott's misinformed doxology. Anti-creationist Barbara Stahl wrote an informative book in 1974 entitled Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution.

“Human evolution” has also recently taken a pummeling from within. Formerly rock-solid examples of our alleged ape-like ancestors have been removed, without fanfare, from the classic transitional ape-to-man series that is still found in public school textbooks. "DNA makes clear that [Homo erectus] was almost certainly a dead end and not our ancestor."5

Even "Lucy" is no longer a missing link:

Lucy's kind occupied only a side branch of human evolution. A. afarensis evolved into the relatively small-brained, large-jawed robust australopithecines but didn't contribute to the evolution of modern people, says anthropologist Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University.” No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?

“If evolution is truly a valid scientific theory, it should be able to easily weather a reasoned inquiry as to its weaknesses and strengths. The irrational and visceral reaction by secular scientists to this suggestion says otherwise.” Ibid.

Denton is the father of ID and has been strongly criticized by evolutionists. Denton could not imagine a Darwinian scenario that could have produced the first bird--complete with continuous lungs connected to air sacs, and with flight feathers but other biologists have no such problem.

As science finds new examples of hominids the tree of life gets redrawn. This is how science works, it is its strength not its weakness. Whether Homo erectus proves to be a dead end or not in no way changes the fundamental truth of our descent from a common ancestor.

Why is there no proof for a single example of one species becoming another in the fossil record?



There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

Because of how useful Darwin's thesis is to Marxism, the subtext that runs throughout Western Civilization.




Darwin's theory documents not evolution, but P.T.Barnum's thesis:
There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute

 

[alang1216]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

 

[Hollie]

….of Karl Marx.


Without Charles Darwin, Karl Marx would merely be a footnote to history.



The month of October had great significance some 180 years ago, when Charles Darwin wrote this in his Autobiography:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work..."
Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins.

At age 29, Darwin had his theory, a work in progress. As of this day, it remains a work in progress, yet to be proven. From the start, it was the support for Marx’s ideas, which also, at the cost of millions of lives, remains yet to be proven.




Now…the details of that 'partnership'.


1.On the very same day, February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born.

“Lincoln, whose life’s mission was to reconnect the nation with the Founder’s thinking, became the most brave, eloquent, and consequential proponent of the idea that human dignity inheres in the capacity of individuals to shape their own lives’ trajectories by exercising their natural rights to make moral choices. Darwin, however, unleashed an idea that seemed to challenge humanity’s understanding of its dignity.” George Will.


2.While Lincoln owns the position of champion of freedom and liberty, Darwin has become the point of the spear for Marxism and Progressivism. If Marx had been correct, the Declaration of Independence could not be correct about God-given unalienable natural rights.

Marxism: There is no God:
"This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."The Schwarz Report | Essays



3. But Marx, proceeding on so-called ‘scientific socialism,’ needed a way to use science against his greatest foe, religion. And Darwin provided that.

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.



4. Marxists, Progressives, well-placed in academia and the media report the tenuous theory of Darwin as fact….as though it was proven, a law of scinece. It is neither, and, in fact, evidence disproves it.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science" most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies. This impression is seriously misleading. Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.




Over 150 years and not only has no proof of Darwin’s wish been found…but evidence to the contrary has!


But, heck, it all works out for the Left as long as government school grads never do their own reading or research…

…...or thinking.

Actually, speciation has been observed.

I would like an opportunity to go through your links a you have demonstrated history of altering, parsing and editing what you cut and paste.

Observed Instances of Speciation


Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[alang1216]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

Nice try.

Obviously one of us has taken organic chemistry and the other is you.

We're gonna stick to Darwin and Marx.


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

He continued:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes


a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).

 

[Hollie]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

Nice try.

Obviously one of us has taken organic chemistry and the other is you.

We're gonna stick to Darwin and Marx.


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

He continued:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes


a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).

Your "quote minng" fraud regarding Darwin is one familiar to me as you have committed that fraud previously. Its a tactic of fraudsters to edit, parse and remove entire sections of "quotes" to misrepresent the context.

Here is the full version of what you carelessly and dishonestly edited.

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

 

[alang1216]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

Nice try.

Obviously one of us has taken organic chemistry and the other is you.

We're gonna stick to Darwin and Marx.


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

He continued:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes


a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).

So you got nothing on evolution from this century? There have been no fossils found since Darwin?

Evolution may be gradual or it may be rapid, most likely both, but it is still evolution.

The link between Marx and Darwin is the same as between the KKK and today's GOP. The KKK identifies with GOP conservatism and States rights while the GOP, mostly, eschews the overt racism of the KKK.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

Nice try.

Obviously one of us has taken organic chemistry and the other is you.

We're gonna stick to Darwin and Marx.


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

He continued:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes


a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).

So you got nothing on evolution from this century? There have been no fossils found since Darwin?

Evolution may be gradual or it may be rapid, most likely both, but it is still evolution.

The link between Marx and Darwin is the same as between the KKK and today's GOP. The KKK identifies with GOP conservatism and States rights while the GOP, mostly, eschews the overt racism of the KKK.

The Liberal white flag: lying.

"There have been no fossils found since Darwin?"

I said no such thing. In fact, I provided a scientific journal article saying quite the opposite.....and stating that it prove the very opposite of Darwin's conjecture.



So…you’re a government school grad?

“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “

Easy To Convince The Uneducated


You government school grads just can't stop lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

Nice try.

Obviously one of us has taken organic chemistry and the other is you.

We're gonna stick to Darwin and Marx.


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

He continued:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes


a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).

So you got nothing on evolution from this century? There have been no fossils found since Darwin?

Evolution may be gradual or it may be rapid, most likely both, but it is still evolution.

The link between Marx and Darwin is the same as between the KKK and today's GOP. The KKK identifies with GOP conservatism and States rights while the GOP, mostly, eschews the overt racism of the KKK.

"Evolution may be gradual or it may be rapid, most likely both, but it is still evolution."

The theory of Darwin, taught in government school as though proven, a law of science, is very clear in stating that it is gradual accumulation of random alterations.


And now I've forced you to admit it isn't true.

Excellent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no other as significant theory that is accepted as law sans any....any.....proof.

Why?

What significant scientific theory has 'proof'. What is the proof of creationism, religion, the supernatural?

Every aspect of chemistry including the explanation for the passing on of traits via DNA.

Since your knee-jerk response is to try to change the subject, the fact that you can't come up with as single proof of the theory is, in effect, agreement that I have skewered you again.


Excellent.

Got an example of a chemistry proof aside from alcohol? There is plenty we don't know about quarks, atoms, molecules, and the various forces of nature. I'd venture to say we have lots of evidence but no proof.

DNA is hardly a good example since we are still trying to understand the complex interactions of genes. There are plenty of diseases that appear genetic but we've been unable to isolate the actual genes responsible. Proven? Not a chance.

Nice try.

Obviously one of us has taken organic chemistry and the other is you.

We're gonna stick to Darwin and Marx.


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

He continued:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes


a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).

So you got nothing on evolution from this century? There have been no fossils found since Darwin?

Evolution may be gradual or it may be rapid, most likely both, but it is still evolution.

The link between Marx and Darwin is the same as between the KKK and today's GOP. The KKK identifies with GOP conservatism and States rights while the GOP, mostly, eschews the overt racism of the KKK.

"The link between Marx and Darwin is the same as between the KKK and today's GOP. "

I love when you post....you manage to put both feet in your mouth.


a. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

b. "Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

He says he's retracting his endorsement of Donald Trump.



Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

More

HILLARY CLINTON CAN ADD a new name to her list of endorsements – a prominent Ku Klux Klan member who says he likes her because of her "hidden agenda."
Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan's California chapter, told the Telegraph Monday that he would be switching his support from Donald Trump to Clinton.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president



c. Here, the mad embrace of Darwin by Marx and Engels
But Marx, proceeding on so-called ‘scientific socialism,’ needed a way to use science against his greatest foe, religion. And Darwin provided that.

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.




Please don't hesitate to post even more fallacies.