Darwin: Far From Science

[PoliticalChic]

Everything you have written is either false, or so vague as to be juvenile.

Nice dodge, I'm sure no one has ever said that about your OP. I see you got nothing to offer when you have to think for yourself. Maybe I should re-post it a few more times, would that help?

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.


j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."



k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

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?

Speak up, moron!!!

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.

True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist.

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

You use a politician's view. A politician from over 200 years ago.
argumentum ad verecundiam. (Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument)

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

Just about every living thing has abilities that differ from those of other organisms. And that is just what you'd expect from evolution since organisms would otherwise have to directly compete and one or the other would become extinct.

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.

A scientist from 100+ years ago? Wallace had some personal issues with Darwin but he independently came up with essentially the same theory so whatever problems he had with Darwin were minor.

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

Yet on the major point of evolutionary decent from a common ancestor, he was in complete agreement.

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.

So? A completely science-free statement. Humanists were quick to endorse Galileo and Copernicus while Religious authorities condemned them. We know who was right.

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

The Scientific Method has been applied to evolution many times and has always revealed the truth of it. The dating and examination of every fossil is a test of the theory.

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."

Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.

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.

The fossil record has only been read for less than 200 years. The earth is constantly destroying fossils. It is hardly surprising to learn it is incomplete.

j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

We never directly observed an atom. Do you doubt they exist? Why?

k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

Recorded history is less than 5,000 years. Not many generations of humans in that time but I'd bet there are new species of virus (HIV?).
As for domestication, have we tried? What is the value of turning a cow into a dog?

Since you like to see the same thing reposted over and over I thought I'd oblige. At least until you attempted to rebut instead of dismiss.

"True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist."


1. There is no distinction between science and politics.....except in the smallest of minds....uneducated and uninformed folks,....you.

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."



2. In October 1919, Lenin paid a secret visit to the laboratory of the great physiologist I. P. Pavlov, a Russian physiologist known chiefly for the concept of the conditioned reflex. In his classic experiment, he found that a hungry dog can be trained to associate the sound of a bell with food and will salivate at the sound even in the absence of food.
Lenin wanted to find out if his work on the conditional reflexes of the brain might help the Bolsheviks control European behaviour. “I want the masses of Russia to follow a Communistic pattern of thinking and reacting,” Lenin explained. Pavlov was astounded. It seemed that Lenin wanted him to do for humans what he had already done for dogs.
“Do you mean that you would like to standardise the population of Russia? Make them all behave in the same way?” he asked. “Exactly” replied Lenin. “Man can be corrected. Man can be made what we want him to be.”… Orlando Figes, "A People's Tragedy," p.732-733

 

[Eaglewings]

Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


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

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "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. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....

This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it..




Many Christians are finally waking up to the fact that people like Pat Robertson scammed them and praying in from of a camera like Ted Cruz did, doesn't automatically give him the votes from the bible belt people..



1. I personally know many many left voting Christians who are not sucked into the fact that your party does not make you a good/bad christian..

2. I went to a christian conference once where there were thousands of scientists..

3. Your stupid theory is about 20 years old when these Pat Robertson people hy-jacked the right wing party..


.

 

[BlindBoo]

As you agree that Darwin's theory has been proven erroneous.....

As with Copernicus and his basic premise that the earth is not the center of the universe, Darwin's basic theory still holds true that life has evolved over time. It was never about the origins of life but Origins of Species.

Seems you don't know what Darwin's theory is.....that must be why you keep trying to change the subject.


Drop back when we get around to a subject more in line with your expertise.....favorite Crayola, or monster truck vids.

Hogwash. Your number one premise of lumping Liberals in with the Godless States like the former USSR was utterly destroyed long ago. Dismantling your specious speculation about Darwin's theory is just icing on the cake.

Of course #1 is correct.....but, you're never going to admit the truth, because it skewers your worldview.
BTW....Communism is international socialism.....and it is alive and thriving in the Democrats' America.


Glad we agree that the other 10 items are indisputable.

Lets just say we completely disagree.

 

[Eaglewings]

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.

Tell me factually how do you know it is the lefts view? Here you are a republican supporting it..haaa so funny..

.

 

[alang1216]

"True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist."


1. There is no distinction between science and politics.....except in the smallest of minds....uneducated and uninformed folks,....you.

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics. You obviously do not. What I did not realize is that you share this position with communists and liberals. If you think I have a small mind, you apparently think they have great minds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


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

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "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. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....

This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it..




Many Christians are finally waking up to the fact that people like Pat Robertson scammed them and praying in from of a camera like Ted Cruz did, doesn't automatically give him the votes from the bible belt people..



1. I personally know many many left voting Christians who are not sucked into the fact that your party does not make you a good/bad christian..

2. I went to a christian conference once where there were thousands of scientists..

3. Your stupid theory is about 20 years old when these Pat Robertson people hy-jacked the right wing party..


.

"This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it.."

Wow....vulgarity and misspelling in one short sentence.
Clearly, you are a genius.


51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.
Scientists and Belief

 

[PoliticalChic]

As you agree that Darwin's theory has been proven erroneous.....

As with Copernicus and his basic premise that the earth is not the center of the universe, Darwin's basic theory still holds true that life has evolved over time. It was never about the origins of life but Origins of Species.

Seems you don't know what Darwin's theory is.....that must be why you keep trying to change the subject.


Drop back when we get around to a subject more in line with your expertise.....favorite Crayola, or monster truck vids.

Hogwash. Your number one premise of lumping Liberals in with the Godless States like the former USSR was utterly destroyed long ago. Dismantling your specious speculation about Darwin's theory is just icing on the cake.

Of course #1 is correct.....but, you're never going to admit the truth, because it skewers your worldview.
BTW....Communism is international socialism.....and it is alive and thriving in the Democrats' America.


Glad we agree that the other 10 items are indisputable.

Lets just say we completely disagree.

"Lets just say we completely disagree."

Thank Heaven!

'Else, I'd have to rethink my position.



And let's remember the defining factor in our individual beliefs is that I rely on facts, knowledge and insight while you rely on dogma and propaganda.

Be well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist."


1. There is no distinction between science and politics.....except in the smallest of minds....uneducated and uninformed folks,....you.

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics. You obviously do not. What I did not realize is that you share this position with communists and liberals. If you think I have a small mind, you apparently think they have great minds.

"You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics. You obviously do not."

Of course I don't......it is the explanation for the bogus Global Warming Scheme.

 

[alang1216]

"You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics. You obviously do not."

Of course I don't......it is the explanation for the bogus Global Warming Scheme.

Pinko! I can't say I'm surprised you don't believe in Global Warming. Off topic maybe but I'm curious why. You don't believe it is happening at all? You don't believe it is caused by humans? You don't believe it is possible for it to happen? You don't believe it has ever happened?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics. You obviously do not."

Of course I don't......it is the explanation for the bogus Global Warming Scheme.

Pinko! I can't say I'm surprised you don't believe in Global Warming. Off topic maybe but I'm curious why. You don't believe it is happening at all? You don't believe it is caused by humans? You don't believe it is possible for it to happen? You don't believe it has ever happened?

No Global Warming......Global Governance.


More proof that Gramschi was correct.....everything is political.

The greatest supporter of the scheme is the United Nations....which was formed by Joseph Stalin.

You didn't know that, did you.

Recognize this?

 

[alang1216]

I can't say I'm surprised you don't believe in Global Warming. Off topic maybe but I'm curious why. You don't believe it is happening at all? You don't believe it is caused by humans? You don't believe it is possible for it to happen? You don't believe it has ever happened?

No Global Warming......Global Governance.

Duh. That should have been obvious to me. You don't believe in climate science for political reasons. So where are all those left-wing glaciers retreating to, the USSR?

 

[BlindBoo]

And let's remember the defining factor in our individual beliefs is that I rely on facts, knowledge and insight while you rely on dogma and propaganda.

Lets just say that you accuse me of what you do. Typical pseudo conservative tactic.

Keep pretending you're winning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And let's remember the defining factor in our individual beliefs is that I rely on facts, knowledge and insight while you rely on dogma and propaganda.

Lets just say that you accuse me of what you do. Typical pseudo conservative tactic.

Keep pretending you're winning.

No prob.

 

[Eaglewings]

Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


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

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "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. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....

This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it..




Many Christians are finally waking up to the fact that people like Pat Robertson scammed them and praying in from of a camera like Ted Cruz did, doesn't automatically give him the votes from the bible belt people..



1. I personally know many many left voting Christians who are not sucked into the fact that your party does not make you a good/bad christian..

2. I went to a christian conference once where there were thousands of scientists..

3. Your stupid theory is about 20 years old when these Pat Robertson people hy-jacked the right wing party..


.

"This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it.."

Wow....vulgarity and misspelling in one short sentence.
Clearly, you are a genius.


51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.
Scientists and Belief

You are claiming that the left-wings are not Christians Have fun with that ~ you are a closed minded moron who has your nose in the air at the rest of humankind because no on except for God is a perfect as you...

Enjoy


.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


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

a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "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. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....

This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it..




Many Christians are finally waking up to the fact that people like Pat Robertson scammed them and praying in from of a camera like Ted Cruz did, doesn't automatically give him the votes from the bible belt people..



1. I personally know many many left voting Christians who are not sucked into the fact that your party does not make you a good/bad christian..

2. I went to a christian conference once where there were thousands of scientists..

3. Your stupid theory is about 20 years old when these Pat Robertson people hy-jacked the right wing party..


.

"This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it.."

Wow....vulgarity and misspelling in one short sentence.
Clearly, you are a genius.


51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.
Scientists and Belief

You are claiming that the left-wings are not Christians Have fun with that ~ you are a closed minded moron who has your nose in the air at the rest of humankind because no on except for God is a perfect as you...

Enjoy


.

"....no on except for God is a perfect as you...



Hmmmm......

There just may be some truth there.....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Darwins theory of evolution explains life on this planet
God = belief and doesn't explain anything

A belief in god is the furthest thing from science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwins theory of evolution explains life on this planet
God = belief and doesn't explain anything

A belief in god is the furthest thing from science.

Actually, HeadFullaRocks, Darwin's theory has been shown to be the furthest thing from science.


The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.


And he writes......

1. "... I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds.

2. Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.

3. Darwin's landmark work...The Origin of Species, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more. To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth."
blogorrhea: Scientists should be humble, not arrogant]



4. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
blogorrhea: Scientists should be humble, not arrogant


Ain't that the truth.
See it in this thread.

The less informed they are,the more irate they become when Darwin is criticized.


5. When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

 

[alang1216]

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

And he writes......

Despite all the issues Kas Thomas has with scientists and evolution, he is NOT a creationist. What does that tell you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

And he writes......

Despite all the issues Kas Thomas has with scientists and evolution, he is NOT a creationist. What does that tell you?

Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

 

[alang1216]

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.