The Battle Between Faith And Reason

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

1. "it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it."
When is it moral to kill an innocent human being?


And then when you savages decide to kill it.....and it squeaks by to be alive after that abortion....and it is a question of infanticide.....


. “…what happens to a baby when she survives an abortion attempt? Is she given medical care as any other patient would receive, or is she left to die?.... the abortion industry and the media have tiptoed around the basic question.


Trump’s statement was only recalling what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


6. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.


I guess the 'morality' is obvious if absent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

 

[alang1216]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

1. "it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it."
When is it moral to kill an innocent human being?

Aside from the numerous examples from the Bible, our society generally considers several instances where the killing of an innocent human being is acceptable:

• War - the US has a long history of bombing military and civilian targets with the assumption that innocent human beings will die. e.g., Dresden in WW2.
• Acceptable risks - we know that certain levels of toxins in our environment will kill a predictable number of people but we accept the risk for economic reasons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

3."... eugenics."

Perhaps the original impetus was a kind of human self-aggrandizement. With the Enlightenment, the explosion of science, there was a kind of ‘we don’t need God to be the explanation for the universe,’ It’s Athens without Jerusalem.



We, mankind, can be god!
That's the definition of 'eugenics.'

Liberalism proclaiming itself god.


“Margaret Sanger’s embrace of the race-based science of Darwinism and Eugenics combined with a mix of atheism and Marxism proved to be a potent concoction resulting in what could be best described today as a sociopath, an individual ‘devoid of conscience.’ She spent her entire adult life gaining the trust of the black race, as she would simultaneously spend her life’s resources attempting to eliminate them. Her view of the Australian Aborigine people is instructive of her racist and evil personality.” Owens, ‘Liberalism,” P. 303-304

In some places you savages.....er, Liberals, used it to kill 'undesirables,' in other places to kill Jews, today, mostly blacks, and always, babies.



How about your socialist Utopias????


"Interestingly, among the supporters of the sterilization program were Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, according to a 1991 Swedish radio documentary produced by Bosse Lindquist. Gunnar Myrdal was a socialist economist who shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economics with Friedrich Hayek. Gunnary Myrdal has also been praised as a "pioneer" in race relations.

Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families:

Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery."...One man featured in the documentary, who was lobotomised in 1963, is now 67 and has no concept of time, still believing that his children are small.

In part, the benevolent socialist government of Sweden hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


"The Washington Post claims that similar programs existed in Austria and Belgium, and the Telegraph (UK) recently reported that Norway sanctioned the physical and sexual abuse of children of occupying German soldiers born to Norwegian women."
Ibid.



One wonders how many human beings could have been saved by a eugenics program targeting Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives.

 

[Hollie]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

The above is more of your usual dishonest "quote mining".

It's a typical pattern of behavior where you selectively edit out entire paragraphs of a "quote" and with some cutting and pasting from Creation.com you attempt to alter the original author's intent.


Your forgery was familiar as one used often by the angry, hyper-religious and is addressed here:

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

Quote #2.4
[Re: The fossil record is incorrectly presented as incontrovertible evidence of the validity of evolutionary theory]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

1. "it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it."
When is it moral to kill an innocent human being?

Aside from the numerous examples from the Bible, our society generally considers several instances where the killing of an innocent human being is acceptable:

• War - the US has a long history of bombing military and civilian targets with the assumption that innocent human beings will die. e.g., Dresden in WW2.
• Acceptable risks - we know that certain levels of toxins in our environment will kill a predictable number of people but we accept the risk for economic reasons.

So your claim is that it is a 'war' on babies?


Did you cook up that idea in that 'EasyBake Oven' of your mind?


You are really sick.

 

[alang1216]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

 

[alang1216]

You are really sick.

I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are really sick.

I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.

My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.

 

[Hollie]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

You need to update your cut and paste links.

www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

That one is as old and tired as your Harun Yahya links.

 

[alang1216]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution.

We both know you're tap-dancing, and have no way to 'refute' any of the facts I post.



Wanna try again, or simply admit you're a lying sack of offal.






1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution.

Marxists must pretend they believe Darwin was right.....it's their religion.


"Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossilsfor 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).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

 

[Hollie]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution.

We both know you're tap-dancing, and have no way to 'refute' any of the facts I post.



Wanna try again, or simply admit you're a lying sack of offal.






1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.

It’s still a dead link.

Like so muck of your cutting and pasting, it’s as dead as a Montanan fossil.

www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

 

[Hollie]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religions are many things, one being a moral code and rules for living. Science is the study of the universe. It is amoral and should be. It can tell if a fertilized egg is human but it can't tell you if it is moral or immoral to kill it. When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics, that was a misuse of science, not science condoning eugenics. Many horrors have been done in the name of science just as many horrors have been done in the name of religion.

2. " When Darwinism became the basis for eugenics,...."

Darwinism?

It is the basis for Marxism/Liberalism/Progressivism......and has been proven false.
Yet you Leftists keep riding that horse.


Where would Leftism/Communism be without Charles Darwin???


If you were subject to the indoctrination of government schooling, you’ve probably come away believing Darwin’s theory is scientific fact. It isn't.

And Marx and Engel needed Darwin as the scientific basis for eliminating any need for religion.




“Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species (1859) provided the first scientific grounding in the notion of a world without God…”
Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”



Many, even today believe this to be proven….hence the danger of merely reading headlines. Darwin himself said he couldn’t prove it, and to this day, it has never been more than a useful theory. Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record : "... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumedearliest 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


In fact, the fossil record shows the very opposite.
Darwin's never-proven theory is more useful to Marxism than it is to science.




Bet government school never told you that, did it.

You should avoid talking about the fossil record since you appear to know little about it. If you wish to discuss evolution you might what to cite source more recent than the 19th century.

Marxism appropriating Darwin is a perfect example of using science in a way that is not valid.

I know everything about it.

I am an expert on every topic I choose to post about.



Here, let's teach you that the fossil record proves the very opposite of what Darwin wrote.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " 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..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct." Burgess Shale - Wikipedia





4 But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature)

How about the sudden.....sudden....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf


Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?

Poor, poor Darwin.

The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.





In your face, booooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution.

Marxists must pretend they believe Darwin was right.....it's their religion.


"Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossilsfor 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).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

The Gould “quote” is one I called out earlier as another of your dishonest cut and paste forgeries.

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

Quote #14
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

 

[alang1216]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

 

[ding]

To an atheist there is no such thing as morality or evil. The only thing they recognize is pleasure and pain.

 

[ding]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Why not? You don’t believe in universal decency, do you?

What’s wrong with exploiting workers? Wolves eat deer. Is the wolf immoral for eating the deer?