Darwin: Far From Science

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

"Bring something to the table"

Something, like, no education or experience in this field whatsoever, laughably false disinformation, and copy/pasted, creationist pap?

None of that is "something". All of it is "nothing".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.

1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost

Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Anger? Wha? I have no need to get upset or defensive. Check the scoreboard....science 1000000, you nutballs 0.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

"Bring something to the table"

Something, like, no education or experience in this field whatsoever, laughably false disinformation, and copy/pasted, creationist pap?

None of that is "something". All of it is "nothing".

Did you want to compare your educational resume with mine?

That would prove to be another mistake for you.

 

[BlindBoo]

1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

Yawn ..... We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world."

Cato's Mission

Looks like you're lumping again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.

1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost

Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Anger? Wha? I have no need to get upset or defensive. Check the scoreboard....science 1000000, you nutballs 0.

Gee.....seems I really got under your skin, huh?

Must be the facts that I posted and you've inadvertently agree to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

Yawn ..... We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world."

Cato's Mission

Looks like you're lumping again.

"1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness."


True?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

"Bring something to the table"

Something, like, no education or experience in this field whatsoever, laughably false disinformation, and copy/pasted, creationist pap?

None of that is "something". All of it is "nothing".

Did you want to compare your educational resume with mine?

That would prove to be another mistake for you.

What kind of idiot thinks his resume has any bearing on the truth of evolution? Also, it doesn't matter what is on your resume...a lie is a lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.

1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost

Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Anger? Wha? I have no need to get upset or defensive. Check the scoreboard....science 1000000, you nutballs 0.

Gee.....seems I really got under your skin, huh?

Must be the facts that I posted and you've inadvertently agree to.

Ah yes, the ages old "accuse others of that which only I am guilty". No...the only person throwing a little hissy is you. Science left your magical nonsense behind long ago, and here you are , throwing a little fit over it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Many of the stone-headed have been tricked into accepting Darwinism, and eschewing religion, which means eschewing morality and having to answer for one's deeds to some higher authority than the state.




What is glossed over is the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,' in order for a theory to be accepted.




There are two forms of such proof Darwin requires: paleological and laboratory experiments.

5. Darwin himself accepted this view, and was chagrinned that no such evidence existed.

" 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

Uh, oh.




6. The fact that many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day, over 150 years after Darwin admitted that this fact " may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.




Darwin's theory requires a gradual series of alteration toward more complexity.

The fossil record proves this false.....yet many accept Darwinism as fact.

Go figure.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously.

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

"Bring something to the table"

Something, like, no education or experience in this field whatsoever, laughably false disinformation, and copy/pasted, creationist pap?

None of that is "something". All of it is "nothing".

Did you want to compare your educational resume with mine?

That would prove to be another mistake for you.

What kind of idiot thinks his resume has any bearing on the truth of evolution? Also, it doesn't matter what is on your resume...a lie is a lie.

Didn't you attempt to refer to me in this way "...Something, like, no education..."

And now you're running from it like your tail was on fire.

Nice retreat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost

Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Anger? Wha? I have no need to get upset or defensive. Check the scoreboard....science 1000000, you nutballs 0.

Gee.....seems I really got under your skin, huh?

Must be the facts that I posted and you've inadvertently agree to.

Ah yes, the ages old "accuse others of that which only I am guilty". No...the only person throwing a little hissy is you. Science left your magical nonsense behind long ago, and here you are , throwing a little fit over it.

I never post with other than seraphic calm....and that's because I'm never wrong.

...as you have found.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. 'Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'
EBSCOhost

Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Anger? Wha? I have no need to get upset or defensive. Check the scoreboard....science 1000000, you nutballs 0.

Gee.....seems I really got under your skin, huh?

Must be the facts that I posted and you've inadvertently agree to.

Ah yes, the ages old "accuse others of that which only I am guilty". No...the only person throwing a little hissy is you. Science left your magical nonsense behind long ago, and here you are , throwing a little fit over it.

"Science left your magical nonsense behind..."

Did you see this?
What is glossed over is the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,' in order for a theory to be accepted.


You don't understand the Scientific Method, do you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously.

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.

Stop begging.

OK>...here's another chance

This is what I've shown so far.....see if you can find any errors herein:



The thread stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously.

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.

Have you ever noticed that crazy people always think it's everyone else who is crazy?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously.

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.

Stop begging.

OK>...here's another chance

This is what I've shown so far.....see if you can find any errors herein:



The thread stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Your very first mistake is to claim that we evolutionary biologists are Darwinists.

When some clown argues with Darwin, we laugh. We corrected Darwin's errors a very long time ago.

 

[BlindBoo]

1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

Yawn ..... We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world."

Cato's Mission

Looks like you're lumping again.

"1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness."


True?

No. If you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Liberals have no problem with that, as long as you don't force your sauce, meatballs, and noodles on me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously.

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.

Have you ever noticed that crazy people always think it's everyone else who is crazy?

Did you find anything 'crazy' in here.....or are you simply too far gone to recognize that you've been thoroughly indoctrinated?

The thread stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

Yawn ..... We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world."

Cato's Mission

Looks like you're lumping again.

"1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness."


True?

No. If you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Liberals have no problem with that, as long as you don't force your sauce, meatballs, and noodles on me.

They gave up on educated adults long ago. Now they have to target children:
Republicans considering law to allow Creationism to be taught as a scientific theory

A Map of Thousands of Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism With Taxpayer Money

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously.

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.

Stop begging.

OK>...here's another chance

This is what I've shown so far.....see if you can find any errors herein:



The thread stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Your very first mistake is to claim that we evolutionary biologists are Darwinists.

When some clown argues with Darwin, we laugh. We corrected Darwin's errors a very long time ago.

What???

You're stating what the OP claims...that Darwin's theory is false????

Now....what is your pal gonna say....he claimed it was a 'fact'???


Get your stories straight!