Destroying Darwinism: Getting Technical

[PoliticalChic]

Outside of saying god did it. Exactly what do you purpose?

1. "Exactly what do you purpose?"

Didn't you see the title of the OP?



2. I never said either god or God did it.
That was your assumption and attempt to avoid the only conclusion possible after due consideration of post #32.



3. Now....after you realize that post #32 accomplishes the aim of the OP, you might try an honest reconsideration of your beliefs.

Realize that a belief sans evidence is a religious faith. I have no problem with your religion of Darwinism.....
...as long as you realize that it is one.

 

[Steven_R]

There are two centuries of scientific discovery behind evolution in fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and genetics. The fact that you can't be bothered to sit down and study a textbook, either because it requires real work or because it might come in conflict with your ilk's religious outlook, does not make evolution or Darwinism a faith.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Clipping and pasting from Creation.com

I guess I know why you didn't link your clips and pastes. The repeated assertions that "there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution." becomes on it's face just too coy and disingenuous. The problem is not sourcing direct quotes properly (even failing to enclose them in quotation marks) starts to look a lot like plagiarism. Besides the fact what you call "well constructed" is a disjointed rehash of discredited creationist dogma, the apparent central projection that you are the principal author borders on being an outright lie.

LINK: Here, I'll source most of it for you

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clipping and pasting from Creation.com

I guess I know why you didn't link your clips and pastes. The repeated assertions that "there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution." becomes on it's face just too coy and disingenuous. The problem is not sourcing direct quotes properly (even failing to enclose them in quotation marks) starts to look a lot like plagiarism. Besides the fact what you call "well constructed" is a disjointed rehash of discredited creationist dogma, the apparent central projection that you are the principal author borders on being an outright lie.

LINK: Here, I'll source most of it for you

This: "there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution." is true and correct.

And this: you're a moron. Also true and correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clipping and pasting from Creation.com

I guess I know why you didn't link your clips and pastes. The repeated assertions that "there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution." becomes on it's face just too coy and disingenuous. The problem is not sourcing direct quotes properly (even failing to enclose them in quotation marks) starts to look a lot like plagiarism. Besides the fact what you call "well constructed" is a disjointed rehash of discredited creationist dogma, the apparent central projection that you are the principal author borders on being an outright lie.

LINK: Here, I'll source most of it for you

I just went back and found five links and/or attributions in the OP.

That makes you a lying sack of offal, doesn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two centuries of scientific discovery behind evolution in fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and genetics. The fact that you can't be bothered to sit down and study a textbook, either because it requires real work or because it might come in conflict with your ilk's religious outlook, does not make evolution or Darwinism a faith.

Did I miss your response to post #32?


Oh...you were simply afraid to try.

Got it.




"The fact that you can't be bothered to sit down and study a textbook,...."

This, in the face of your refusal to answer the above mentioned post?
Priceless.

The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Clipping and pasting from Creation.com

I guess I know why you didn't link your clips and pastes. The repeated assertions that "there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution." becomes on it's face just too coy and disingenuous. The problem is not sourcing direct quotes properly (even failing to enclose them in quotation marks) starts to look a lot like plagiarism. Besides the fact what you call "well constructed" is a disjointed rehash of discredited creationist dogma, the apparent central projection that you are the principal author borders on being an outright lie.

LINK: Here, I'll source most of it for you

I just went back and found five links and/or attributions in the OP.

That makes you a lying sack of offal, doesn't it.

The original authors of the material you poached attributed their sources, and you copied their attributions along with the rest of their intellectual property. This is not a subtle distinction, even you should recognize the difference. If not I hope your relatives are aware that it probably isn't safe for you to cross the street alone.

Now back to the real problem that you are not so subtly trying to avoid. You're creationist ideas aren't that uncommon. Why are you so ashamed of them that you would rather plagiarize than espouse them openly? Where are the rest of your
links and sources. Time to step up and be honest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clipping and pasting from Creation.com

I guess I know why you didn't link your clips and pastes. The repeated assertions that "there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution." becomes on it's face just too coy and disingenuous. The problem is not sourcing direct quotes properly (even failing to enclose them in quotation marks) starts to look a lot like plagiarism. Besides the fact what you call "well constructed" is a disjointed rehash of discredited creationist dogma, the apparent central projection that you are the principal author borders on being an outright lie.

LINK: Here, I'll source most of it for you

I just went back and found five links and/or attributions in the OP.

That makes you a lying sack of offal, doesn't it.

The original authors of the material you poached attributed their sources, and you copied their attributions along with the rest of their intellectual property. This is not a subtle distinction, even you should recognize the difference. If not I hope your relatives are aware that it probably isn't safe for you to cross the street alone.

Now back to the real problem that you are not so subtly trying to avoid. You're creationist ideas aren't that uncommon. Why are you so ashamed of them that you would rather plagiarize than espouse them openly? Where are the rest of your
links and sources. Time to step up and be honest.

1. Attribution is to an original source.
You should be aware of that.


2. You suggested that the OP relies on religion or the Bible or creationism......Show it you liar.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I just went back and found five links and/or attributions in the OP.

That makes you a lying sack of offal, doesn't it.

The original authors of the material you poached attributed their sources, and you copied their attributions along with the rest of their intellectual property. This is not a subtle distinction, even you should recognize the difference. If not I hope your relatives are aware that it probably isn't safe for you to cross the street alone.

Now back to the real problem that you are not so subtly trying to avoid. You're creationist ideas aren't that uncommon. Why are you so ashamed of them that you would rather plagiarize than espouse them openly? Where are the rest of your
links and sources. Time to step up and be honest.

1. Attribution is to an original source.
You should be aware of that.

2. You suggested that the OP relies on religion or the Bible or creationism......Show it you liar.

You mine creationist sites for quotes to adorn this crude pastiche of "scientific" argument (without one link) and then have the gall to claim the post does not rely "on religion or the Bible or creationism". I have no idea whether your brain actually processes logic with that degree of ineptitude or it's just a continuation of your attempt to blur the real creationist agenda of the OP.

 

[S.J.]

Oh by the way

If you think your little ploy of going back and editing in links post facto is going to fool anybody you are a fool. I conveniently made a copy of the original post last night. In its original it is sans-links which of course you know. So when did you do the editing? Very early this morning I guess. This reveals finally the extent of your pathetic ego-driven perfidy. I repeat I Have a Copy of the Original Post. What a clown

Wow, you really take this shit seriously, don't you?

 

[SmedlyButler]

Yeah, you're right,I let her lies piss me off to the brink of silliness. Not worth it at all. I'll move on, thanks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The original authors of the material you poached attributed their sources, and you copied their attributions along with the rest of their intellectual property. This is not a subtle distinction, even you should recognize the difference. If not I hope your relatives are aware that it probably isn't safe for you to cross the street alone.

Now back to the real problem that you are not so subtly trying to avoid. You're creationist ideas aren't that uncommon. Why are you so ashamed of them that you would rather plagiarize than espouse them openly? Where are the rest of your
links and sources. Time to step up and be honest.

1. Attribution is to an original source.
You should be aware of that.

2. You suggested that the OP relies on religion or the Bible or creationism......Show it you liar.

You mine creationist sites for quotes to adorn this crude pastiche of "scientific" argument (without one link) and then have the gall to claim the post does not rely "on religion or the Bible or creationism". I have no idea whether your brain actually processes logic with that degree of ineptitude or it's just a continuation of your attempt to blur the real creationist agenda of the OP.

Listen, you moron.....post #32 is a science-based attack on Darwin.

You haven't the courage to respond to same.

Instead you attempt to cloud the issue and pretend that is a religion-based critique.


I clearly know and understand the science, and lack thereof, of the issue better than you.



So.....either respond to #32....or remain a lying ass.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, you're right,I let her lies piss me off to the brink of silliness. Not worth it at all. I'll move on, thanks.

This was post #68:

2. You suggested that the OP relies on religion or the Bible or creationism......Show it you liar.



Where is your answer, dunce?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh by the way

If you think your little ploy of going back and editing in links post facto is going to fool anybody you are a fool. I conveniently made a copy of the original post last night. In its original it is sans-links which of course you know. So when did you do the editing? Very early this morning I guess. This reveals finally the extent of your pathetic ego-driven perfidy. I repeat I Have a Copy of the Original Post. What a clown

Wow, you really take this shit seriously, don't you?

I don't become angered when fools like that guy disagree.....but they get incensed if their sacred Darwin scam is revealed for what it is.


That in itself indicates that Darwinism is religion and politically based.....not science.
They are embarrassed that, deep down they know I speak the truth....and that they have been fooled and lied to.....

....and bought it like it was on sale.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, you're right,I let her lies piss me off to the brink of silliness. Not worth it at all. I'll move on, thanks.

BTW....I never lie.

 

[Old Rocks]

PC, the party's over. No one of consequence takes creationism seriously. And the Theory of Evolution is accepted worldwide. Like Newton in physics, Darwin was the seminal scientist in that field, but, also like Newton, not the last word, for the world of science moves on, and Theories get refined as new evidence comes in. People like you that somehow think they can change the facts by denigrating great minds of the past only prove the smallness of your own mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, the party's over. No one of consequence takes creationism seriously. And the Theory of Evolution is accepted worldwide. Like Newton in physics, Darwin was the seminal scientist in that field, but, also like Newton, not the last word, for the world of science moves on, and Theories get refined as new evidence comes in. People like you that somehow think they can change the facts by denigrating great minds of the past only prove the smallness of your own mind.

If that's the case, Rocks, post #32 should be a piece a' cake for you.


Bet you won't even try it.

 

[rdean]

Republicans are showing us they can't destroy science. But their ignorance is destroying them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans are showing us they can't destroy science. But their ignorance is destroying them.

If there is any ignorance of science it is the folks like you who disagree with the OP...but have no answers to the questions in post #32...

...why is that?


Could it be you are simply indoctrinated not to question, but merely to repeat?

 

[rdean]

Republicans are showing us they can't destroy science. But their ignorance is destroying them.

If there is any ignorance of science it is the folks like you who disagree with the OP...but have no answers to the questions in post #32...

...why is that?


Could it be you are simply indoctrinated not to question, but merely to repeat?

You list these "hard questions" because to right wingers, everything is a "hard question".

Go to an actual evolutionary scientist and what you get is a dissertation. And rightfully so.

Then right wingers will say, "Oh you blindly follow scientists". The truth is, at some point, I do. We all do.

If you get sick and go to a doctor, you don't know what someone who has studied for 15 years knows. Not unless you also studied that for 15 years.
If you go on a roller coaster, are you blindly trusting the engineer who designed it? The people who built it? The people who maintain it? Do you know what acceleration the materials can handle? The body? At what point does it become unsafe?

What leads you to trust is the "record". Scientists have a pretty good record. Right wingers don't.