Can It Be Science If It's Based On Lies???

[PoliticalChic]

1. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

2.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia

Pay particular attention to the "over time" part. That means not spontaneous, or sudden.





3. Lots of folks become incensed when there is criticism of Darwin's theory, and it is my observation that most of the angriest ones know only the 'science' that they were taught in high school.

The most popular high school biology textbook, "Prentice Hall Biology," seems to be the basis of information of so many Darwin-defenders, and it actually states:
"By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time."
Miller and Levine, "Prentice Hall Biology," p. 382.

Did you notice the "over time" phrase again?





I can prove that none of the above is correct or true.
Really.

In two ways: one, by explaining what the actual science of biology- not the political science (i.e., Darwinian evolution) - accepts as its basis.
And two, by providing the statements of recognized scientists.
Ready?




4. Imagine that you could witness all of biological history: begin by making the acquaintance of some of the first forms of animal life, say, a very simple sponge.

Disclaimer: if you have no experience in science, and no knowledge of these simple multicellular organisms, sponges, well...this discussion is probably not for you. Sorry.

a. OK...now, according to Darwin, start with those sponges: several thousand generations later, accumulation of many random 'alterations' produces a different kind of sponge...and we have the first species.

b. Millions more generations, and we have some more species...some of which are so different that we can group them as different genus's...genera.

c. Many, many more generations....enough differences, and we now have families.

d. Thousands more generations, with commensurate alterations, and we have orders, and then classes.

Guess what: after all of that....all we still have are sponges!!! Phylum Porifera

5. Now....a new kind of thing emerges.....so different that we couldn't call it a sponge! Finally, a different phylum!
"After sponges, Sogin thinks, jellyfish evolved, and then anemones, which gave rise to the first animal with bilateral symmetry.." Was The Humble Sponge Earth's First Animal?





6. Darwin said that the only evidence of his theory 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





7. Back to fossils for a moment. Clearly they are the most important aspect of the discussion of whether Darwin was correct, or not.
I'm not the one saying that: the National Academy of Sciences says it. And the text used in most high schools says so.

So does this, from Yale University:

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, "Historic Geology," John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47


So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

 

[Spoonman]

where ever there is millions of dollars of grant money at stake, there are bound to be many lies

 

[PoliticalChic]

where ever there is millions of dollars of grant money at stake, there are bound to be many lies

Certainly is true with respect to the global warming scam.....but with both Darwinian evolution and global warming, I see a a heavy, heavy overlay of politics.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

1. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

2.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia

Pay particular attention to the "over time" part. That means not spontaneous, or sudden.





3. Lots of folks become incensed when there is criticism of Darwin's theory, and it is my observation that most of the angriest ones know only the 'science' that they were taught in high school.

The most popular high school biology textbook, "Prentice Hall Biology," seems to be the basis of information of so many Darwin-defenders, and it actually states:
"By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time."
Miller and Levine, "Prentice Hall Biology," p. 382.

Did you notice the "over time" phrase again?





I can prove that none of the above is correct or true.
Really.

In two ways: one, by explaining what the actual science of biology- not the political science (i.e., Darwinian evolution) - accepts as its basis.
And two, by providing the statements of recognized scientists.
Ready?




4. Imagine that you could witness all of biological history: begin by making the acquaintance of some of the first forms of animal life, say, a very simple sponge.

Disclaimer: if you have no experience in science, and no knowledge of these simple multicellular organisms, sponges, well...this discussion is probably not for you. Sorry.

a. OK...now, according to Darwin, start with those sponges: several thousand generations later, accumulation of many random 'alterations' produces a different kind of sponge...and we have the first species.

b. Millions more generations, and we have some more species...some of which are so different that we can group them as different genus's...genera.

c. Many, many more generations....enough differences, and we now have families.

d. Thousands more generations, with commensurate alterations, and we have orders, and then classes.

Guess what: after all of that....all we still have are sponges!!! Phylum Porifera

5. Now....a new kind of thing emerges.....so different that we couldn't call it a sponge! Finally, a different phylum!
"After sponges, Sogin thinks, jellyfish evolved, and then anemones, which gave rise to the first animal with bilateral symmetry.." Was The Humble Sponge Earth's First Animal?





6. Darwin said that the only evidence of his theory 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





7. Back to fossils for a moment. Clearly they are the most important aspect of the discussion of whether Darwin was correct, or not.
I'm not the one saying that: the National Academy of Sciences says it. And the text used in most high schools says so.

So does this, from Yale University:

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, "Historic Geology," John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47


So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

Believe what ya want. Science is science because if it's proven wrong it adapts to the correction and goes back to being right. Wanna deny evolution, go ahead, science doesn't require a consensus or agreement. It's either right or it's wrong, but when it's wrong it isn't for very long.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

2.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia

Pay particular attention to the "over time" part. That means not spontaneous, or sudden.





3. Lots of folks become incensed when there is criticism of Darwin's theory, and it is my observation that most of the angriest ones know only the 'science' that they were taught in high school.

The most popular high school biology textbook, "Prentice Hall Biology," seems to be the basis of information of so many Darwin-defenders, and it actually states:
"By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time."
Miller and Levine, "Prentice Hall Biology," p. 382.

Did you notice the "over time" phrase again?





I can prove that none of the above is correct or true.
Really.

In two ways: one, by explaining what the actual science of biology- not the political science (i.e., Darwinian evolution) - accepts as its basis.
And two, by providing the statements of recognized scientists.
Ready?




4. Imagine that you could witness all of biological history: begin by making the acquaintance of some of the first forms of animal life, say, a very simple sponge.

Disclaimer: if you have no experience in science, and no knowledge of these simple multicellular organisms, sponges, well...this discussion is probably not for you. Sorry.

a. OK...now, according to Darwin, start with those sponges: several thousand generations later, accumulation of many random 'alterations' produces a different kind of sponge...and we have the first species.

b. Millions more generations, and we have some more species...some of which are so different that we can group them as different genus's...genera.

c. Many, many more generations....enough differences, and we now have families.

d. Thousands more generations, with commensurate alterations, and we have orders, and then classes.

Guess what: after all of that....all we still have are sponges!!! Phylum Porifera

5. Now....a new kind of thing emerges.....so different that we couldn't call it a sponge! Finally, a different phylum!
"After sponges, Sogin thinks, jellyfish evolved, and then anemones, which gave rise to the first animal with bilateral symmetry.." Was The Humble Sponge Earth's First Animal?





6. Darwin said that the only evidence of his theory 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





7. Back to fossils for a moment. Clearly they are the most important aspect of the discussion of whether Darwin was correct, or not.
I'm not the one saying that: the National Academy of Sciences says it. And the text used in most high schools says so.

So does this, from Yale University:

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, "Historic Geology," John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47


So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

Believe what ya want. Science is science because if it's proven wrong it adapts to the correction and goes back to being right. Wanna deny evolution, go ahead, science doesn't require a consensus or agreement. It's either right or it's wrong, but when it's wrong it isn't for very long.

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

 

[jillian]

1. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

2.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia

Pay particular attention to the "over time" part. That means not spontaneous, or sudden.





3. Lots of folks become incensed when there is criticism of Darwin's theory, and it is my observation that most of the angriest ones know only the 'science' that they were taught in high school.

The most popular high school biology textbook, "Prentice Hall Biology," seems to be the basis of information of so many Darwin-defenders, and it actually states:
"By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time."
Miller and Levine, "Prentice Hall Biology," p. 382.

Did you notice the "over time" phrase again?





I can prove that none of the above is correct or true.
Really.

In two ways: one, by explaining what the actual science of biology- not the political science (i.e., Darwinian evolution) - accepts as its basis.
And two, by providing the statements of recognized scientists.
Ready?




4. Imagine that you could witness all of biological history: begin by making the acquaintance of some of the first forms of animal life, say, a very simple sponge.

Disclaimer: if you have no experience in science, and no knowledge of these simple multicellular organisms, sponges, well...this discussion is probably not for you. Sorry.

a. OK...now, according to Darwin, start with those sponges: several thousand generations later, accumulation of many random 'alterations' produces a different kind of sponge...and we have the first species.

b. Millions more generations, and we have some more species...some of which are so different that we can group them as different genus's...genera.

c. Many, many more generations....enough differences, and we now have families.

d. Thousands more generations, with commensurate alterations, and we have orders, and then classes.

Guess what: after all of that....all we still have are sponges!!! Phylum Porifera

5. Now....a new kind of thing emerges.....so different that we couldn't call it a sponge! Finally, a different phylum!
"After sponges, Sogin thinks, jellyfish evolved, and then anemones, which gave rise to the first animal with bilateral symmetry.." Was The Humble Sponge Earth's First Animal?





6. Darwin said that the only evidence of his theory 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





7. Back to fossils for a moment. Clearly they are the most important aspect of the discussion of whether Darwin was correct, or not.
I'm not the one saying that: the National Academy of Sciences says it. And the text used in most high schools says so.

So does this, from Yale University:

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, "Historic Geology," John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47


So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

Believe what ya want. Science is science because if it's proven wrong it adapts to the correction and goes back to being right. Wanna deny evolution, go ahead, science doesn't require a consensus or agreement. It's either right or it's wrong, but when it's wrong it isn't for very long.

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

 

[PoliticalChic]

Believe what ya want. Science is science because if it's proven wrong it adapts to the correction and goes back to being right. Wanna deny evolution, go ahead, science doesn't require a consensus or agreement. It's either right or it's wrong, but when it's wrong it isn't for very long.

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any understanding of cell function obliterates the notion of Darwin's evoluytion

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems some folks missed the point.

If fossil evidence is the hook on which 'science' hangs the truth of Darwin's theory.....well, how to explain the following:


8. "The lowest level of fossiliferous rock (rocks bearing fossils) was known as the Cambrian layer in Darwin's time and was supposedly laid down some six hundred million years ago." http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm#N_3_

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


a. ". . . the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations;-the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata,-are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We see this in the fact that the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgewick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species [in other words, species do not evolve]."
Darwin, Ibid.


b. "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Darwin, Ibid.




But wait....that was over a century and a half ago!

How about all the fossil proof of the theory since then????

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....what is the current state of the fossil debate?


10. Modern paleontologists have the definitive answer to Darwin's conundrum: the sudden appearance of the major animal phyla near the beginning of the Cambrian is "the single most spectacular phenomenon evident in the fossil record."
James Valentine , The biological explosion at the Pre Cambrian - Cambrian Boundary . Evolutionary Biology 25 , 1991 , 279-356 .


Know what that means?


It means that there is no fossil record showing a change from one species to another "over time."


[Note: more than interesting, James Valentine recently proclaimed that Darwin was correct, i.e., all living things come from one common ancestor.

This, after admitting that the evidence was quite to the contrary! Get it? Darwin, in spite of the evidence!!! The new science?]


a. Scientists admit that the Cambrian expolosion pretty much ends Darwin's theory:


" The Big Bang of Animal Evolution ." (Scientific American )
" Evolution's Big Bang . " ( Science )
Jeffrey Levinton , The big bang of animal evolution , Scientific American , November 1992 , 84-91 .
Richard Kerr , Evolutions big bang gets even more explosive , Science 261 , 1993, 1274-75 .......


b. "For billions of years, simple creatures like plankton, bacteria and algae ruled the earth. Then, suddenly, life got very complicated"
raceandhistory.com - WHEN LIFE EXPLODED



So.....how to explain the lies of the National Academy of Sciences?

Surely they should remove the last word in the title.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yay, let's close down the best science intuitions on earth and defund them. LOL...

Go fuck youself!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Believe what ya want. Science is science because if it's proven wrong it adapts to the correction and goes back to being right. Wanna deny evolution, go ahead, science doesn't require a consensus or agreement. It's either right or it's wrong, but when it's wrong it isn't for very long.

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

The theory of evolution has advanced greatly during past 150 years into a very robust theory explaining life on earth. What the deniers can't grasp is the reality that their bible doesn't explain anything and just like any religious nut they go crazy throwing shit against the wall to disprove it. This isn't how science works!

Evolution has evolved into a respectable theory unlike the bible!

 

[ogibillm]

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

you don't make that case in the op. you state it as fact, but you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

 

[ScienceRocks]

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

you don't make that case in the op. you state it as fact, but you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

To the bible thumpers, they don't need no stinking evidence. You see they can say something and that is suppose to be what you're expected to believe. Evolution at least the modern refined vision is based on observation within a lab that can be reproduced...Unlike global warming, plate tectonics or dozens of other theories. What do they have,,,,It isn't so they say demandly!

 

[1751_Texan]

Why is Darwin seen as the definitive authority of evolutionary science?

Not even Einstein's theory of relativity is definative. Einstein built on Newton.

Einstein and Newton were spearted by some 300 years.

The theory of Evolution is less than 150 years old.

God is 10,000 years old and people still can't prove his theories.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yay, let's close down the best science intuitions on earth and defund them. LOL...

Go fuck youself!

You're not speaking to family here.....watch your language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

The theory of evolution has advanced greatly during past 150 years into a very robust theory explaining life on earth. What the deniers can't grasp is the reality that their bible doesn't explain anything and just like any religious nut they go crazy throwing shit against the wall to disprove it. This isn't how science works!

Evolution has evolved into a respectable theory unlike the bible!

You don't know what you're talking about.

Is that why you're called Matthew the Moron?

 

[PoliticalChic]

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

you don't make that case in the op. you state it as fact, but you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

Watch this space for further developments.

 

[ogibillm]

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

you don't make that case in the op. you state it as fact, but you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

Watch this space for further developments.

i'm waiting. please show us the evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

you don't make that case in the op. you state it as fact, but you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

To the bible thumpers, they don't need no stinking evidence. You see they can say something and that is suppose to be what you're expected to believe. Evolution at least the modern refined vision is based on observation within a lab that can be reproduced...Unlike global warming, plate tectonics or dozens of other theories. What do they have,,,,It isn't so they say demandly!

Why are you bringing up the Bible, M & M?


Is it because you are embarrassed that you have no fossil evidence for Darwin's theory?


Or, of course, simply because I've exposed the fact that you're a moron?


Which one?