Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

..Belief in Darwin is no different than belief in any other religion.
All are based on faith.

Go forth and sin no more.

Lying/sinning Bimb0!
Evolution belief is based on 160 years of ever-growing and overwhelming EVIDENCE.
God/S have none. Just faith/belief without evidence.
`
`

 

[Hollie]

You have a lot to learn, and I am here to teach you.


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



"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

Why do you bother cutting and pasting from flat earth loons?

Belief in Darwin is no different than belief in any other religion.
All are based on faith.


Go forth and sin no more.

oh, no. Not the same cut and paste nonsense from crank Dean Kenyon.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

 

[scruffy]

"The topic is SPECIES. You know, that guy Darwin."


Did you actually write this????



“You are lying AGAIN.

Darwin did not offer to explain life on earth.”

Blowing Up Darwin Post #896




AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was specifically designed to explain the variety of life on Earth, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptations to their environment, resulting in the vast array of species we see today.


You have brought into doubt everything you have written.

Total waste of time.

 

[scruffy]

I recognize your attemt to change the subject from Darwin's mistakes, and yours, as you are taking quite a beating here.

It is you who are beaten.

Science marches on without you.

 

[scruffy]

It is vital to this topic to explain the beginning of life. Species came later.

No, it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the least.

 

[Hollie]

"... threatened by science ..."

To what 'science' do you refer......you don't appear to understand the term itself.

I refer to “biblical science” of a flat earth and the “biblical science” of men living to be 600 years old. Care to tell us about the “science” of a 600 year old man piloting a home-built yacht full of animals during a godly flood 4,500 years ago?

 

[Hollie]

What, then, is your explanation of the variety of life on the planet?

This thread thoroughly proved that Darwin was clueless as to that question......I assume you are the same.

Your comment is beyond clueless. No surprise there. Darwin’s theory is a valid explanation for the variety of life on the planet.

Give us some supportable data for your biblical fable of Noah’s pleasure cruise to explain the abundance of life on the planet.

Help us understand the propagation of humanity as Noah and his immediate family were tasked with repopulating the planet. Why did your gods require incestuous and familial relations to do that repopulation?

Animals two by two remember your Bible’ology. Was it the same for Noah deciding about his family members. Who would be the best breeding stock?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As your religious extremism is so debilitating you have never had an intelligent post.

You're just a run of the mill Bible thumper.

Yet, in this thread, I have provided hundreds of linked, sourced and documented statements that prove that your beliefs, and they are no more than beliefs, not science, are false.

You are entitled to believe in Darwin, but it is based on nothing more than a religious faith.


Go forth and sin no more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I realize your inability to define any of 'Darwin's mistakes' or any ability to acknowledge your profound ignorance as you make one spectacular gaffe after another.

Darwin himself defined and described them: no proof of his theory.

And, there still is none.

You haven't been able to provide any, but I accept your religious faith in Darwin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The topic is SPECIES. You know, that guy Darwin."


Did you actually write this????



“You are lying AGAIN.

Darwin did not offer to explain life on earth.”

Blowing Up Darwin Post #896




AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was specifically designed to explain the variety of life on Earth, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptations to their environment, resulting in the vast array of species we see today.


You have brought into doubt everything you have written.

How can you "disagree" when I proved that you wrote it.

Are you schizophrenic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is you who are beaten.

Science marches on without you.

But you haven't provided any science that supports Darwin's thesis.

 

[Hollie]

Darwin himself defined and described them: no proof of his theory.

And, there still is none.

You haven't been able to provide any, but I accept your religious faith in Darwin.

You're clueles. Biological evolution has been proven by research in the field of medical science.

Science and evolution - PMC

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory. It has endured daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology (Rutledge and Warden, 2000)."

Now would be a good time to prove your bibles and the flat earth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I refer to “biblical science” of a flat earth and the “biblical science” of men living to be 600 years old. Care to tell us about the “science” of a 600 year old man piloting a home-built yacht full of animals during a godly flood 4,500 years ago?

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

 

[Hollie]

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

So no. Aside from your endless cutting and pasting of "quotes", you have nothing to support your biblical flat earth.

Kind of hard to miss the “quote" that refutes your nonsense claims. From your link, "the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed."

Nicely done, Dunce. You refute your own nonsense.
And still nothing on your biblical flat earth.

What scientists accept your flat earth claims?


So we can agree that the majority of scientists do not believe in gawds, specifically your various gods.

 

[abu afak]

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

All PLAGIARIZED and QUOTE MINED from a Creationist Website.
LINK?

And Genesis is in the Wrong Order several Times.

and Life Existed for nearly 1 BILLION Years BEFORE the 'Cambrian Explosion.'

'LIGHT'/Earth 4 BILLION Years BEFORE the 'Cambrian Explosion.'

`

 

[Hollie]

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

Tell us more about the data presented by preacher Prager for his flat earth science.

 

[Hollie]

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

Show us the "science" that confirms a biblical flood, 600 year old men and the science of incestuous and familial relations that allowed Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.

I suspect you are well versed in the dangers of familial relations.

 

[Hollie]

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

As usual, you steal " quotes" that are unattributed, edited and parsed, so you can press your extremist hyper-religious agenda. What a dishonest hack. Do your gods approve of such fraud?

 

[Hollie]

Today science and the Bible find similar "beliefs."

1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And science has come to accept that the course of life found on the earth mirrors Biblical Genesis.

It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


2. Unavoidable is the recognition that the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis:
light from an explosion (the Big Bang),
universe/earth formed,
the seas from the cooling earth,
plants as the first life forms;
abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion),
the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today.

And humans the last created.

Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?





3. If it is not evidence for God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


And this from folks living in the desert!

Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Kind of hard to miss the implication. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

Tell us about the scientific "beliefs" of talking snakes, men made from dirt and women made from human spare ribs.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You can find it. It's when he describes himself as technically agnostic.

He says he is as agnostic about your god as he is fairies and leprechauns.

He also says that an analysis of living material might possibly reveal a "signature" an indicator that a designer played a role in the construction of said living material.