Darwin: Far From Science

[LuckyDuck]

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.....

The original post proves nothing. Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes, as religion has absolutely nothing to do with science; science is only a "belief" system of an "invisible" deity that created everything. Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are. Despite your protestations, just saying a deity exists, proves nothing and there is so far, ample evidence of hominids going through physical changes. Europeans clearly show via DNA, that we are part Neanderthal, a type of hominid and over time, we may find additional evidence of our origins via additional findings. When one jumps to causes being a result of deities, one just gives him/herself less credibility.

 

[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.....

The original post proves nothing. Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes, as religion has absolutely nothing to do with science; science is only a "belief" system of an "invisible" deity that created everything. Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are. Despite your protestations, just saying a deity exists, proves nothing and there is so far, ample evidence of hominids going through physical changes. Europeans clearly show via DNA, that we are part Neanderthal, a type of hominid and over time, we may find additional evidence of our origins via additional findings. When one jumps to causes being a result of deities, one just gives him/herself less credibility.

" Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes,...."

Of course they do, you dunce.....they teach the most destructive of religions....Liberalism.


You're proof of that:
Darwin's theory is based on faith....nothing more.

Neither is there proof of same in the fossil record, nor in the laboratory.
Yet your believe it indubitably.


Bet you're a government school grad, huh?

Ever read a book?

 

[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.....

The original post proves nothing. Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes, as religion has absolutely nothing to do with science; science is only a "belief" system of an "invisible" deity that created everything. Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are. Despite your protestations, just saying a deity exists, proves nothing and there is so far, ample evidence of hominids going through physical changes. Europeans clearly show via DNA, that we are part Neanderthal, a type of hominid and over time, we may find additional evidence of our origins via additional findings. When one jumps to causes being a result of deities, one just gives him/herself less credibility.

"Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are."

Gads, you're a dunce.

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



2. Here's where 'new species' are produced.

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky



3. BTW....Hillary Clinton said the same thing.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

 

[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.....

The original post proves nothing. Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes, as religion has absolutely nothing to do with science; science is only a "belief" system of an "invisible" deity that created everything. Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are. Despite your protestations, just saying a deity exists, proves nothing and there is so far, ample evidence of hominids going through physical changes. Europeans clearly show via DNA, that we are part Neanderthal, a type of hominid and over time, we may find additional evidence of our origins via additional findings. When one jumps to causes being a result of deities, one just gives him/herself less credibility.

I've been specific in this thread....

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....or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:

 

[PoliticalChic]

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:

Why have you slithered back???

Did you forget how I embarrassed you twice...thrice.....showing that you were unable to deny any the facts that I posted in this thread????


OK...one more time: wipe the egg off your kisser and I'll let you try again:

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....or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:

Why have you slithered back???

Did you forget how I embarrassed you twice...thrice.....showing that you were unable to deny any the facts that I posted in this thread????


OK...one more time: wipe the egg off your kisser and I'll let you try again:

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....or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!

I told you, I'm just here to ridicule you and your hilariously stupid conspiracy theory. You know, I made a thread specifically for this idiotic nonsense. Mods should merge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:

Why have you slithered back???

Did you forget how I embarrassed you twice...thrice.....showing that you were unable to deny any the facts that I posted in this thread????


OK...one more time: wipe the egg off your kisser and I'll let you try again:

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....or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!

I told you, I'm just here to ridicule you and your hilariously stupid conspiracy theory. You know, I made a thread specifically for this idiotic nonsense. Mods should merge.

You dunce,....every time I expose the facts and you scurry away from them.....your post becomes a boomerang.
You're just too dumb to realize it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:

Why have you slithered back???

Did you forget how I embarrassed you twice...thrice.....showing that you were unable to deny any the facts that I posted in this thread????


OK...one more time: wipe the egg off your kisser and I'll let you try again:

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....or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!

I told you, I'm just here to ridicule you and your hilariously stupid conspiracy theory. You know, I made a thread specifically for this idiotic nonsense. Mods should merge.

You dunce,....every time I expose the facts and you scurry away from them.....your post becomes a boomerang.
You're just too dumb to realize it.

Yes, you are so smart, and everyone else is so dumb. Your anti-education, anti-science path has created a mental giant in you . yep, makes sense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:

Why have you slithered back???

Did you forget how I embarrassed you twice...thrice.....showing that you were unable to deny any the facts that I posted in this thread????


OK...one more time: wipe the egg off your kisser and I'll let you try again:

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....or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!

I told you, I'm just here to ridicule you and your hilariously stupid conspiracy theory. You know, I made a thread specifically for this idiotic nonsense. Mods should merge.

You dunce,....every time I expose the facts and you scurry away from them.....your post becomes a boomerang.
You're just too dumb to realize it.

Yes, you are so smart, and everyone else is so dumb. Your anti-education, anti-science path has created a mental giant in you . yep, makes sense.

Let's just say I'm somewhere between you, and smart.


Were you able to refute any of those facts yet?

No?

Keep trying, dolt.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's funny about this retarded thread is there's ZERO evidence for this god or the method such want about creating this life.

I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history. What can this **** show to prove that she got a better theory??? Nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's funny about this retarded thread is there's ZERO evidence for this god or the method such want about creating this life.

I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history. What can this **** show to prove that she got a better theory??? Nothing.

Well of course not. That's the most "special" thing about these cackling deniers: They know less than nothing about this topic and about how science works, so they actually think they are challenging accepted scientific theories by regurgitating blogs on a mesage board.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's funny about this retarded thread is there's ZERO evidence for this god or the method such want about creating this life.

I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history. What can this **** show to prove that she got a better theory??? Nothing.

"I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."


No you can't.....just as you can't stop lying or start learning.



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

 

[alang1216]

"I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."

No you can't.....just as you can't stop lying or start learning.

Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. There are no other theories that even come close. The truth may not fit well with your ideology but that is not a problem with reality but with your ideology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."

No you can't.....just as you can't stop lying or start learning.

Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. There are no other theories that even come close. The truth may not fit well with your ideology but that is not a problem with reality but with your ideology.

When you're as ignorant of the subject as you are, you'll say and believe anything.


"There are no other theories that even come close."

Here are a couple...

1.Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man.

Crick explains...
Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144



2. Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109



Since there is as much 'scientific evidence' for the theories of these two geniuses as that of Darwinian evolution.....why your attachment to the one and not the others?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."

No you can't.....just as you can't stop lying or start learning.

Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. There are no other theories that even come close. The truth may not fit well with your ideology but that is not a problem with reality but with your ideology.

"Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. "

No, they don't, you dunce.

Not only do I say that....but numerous scientists in the field do as well.


And...as usual, I can prove everything I claim.

1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


4. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



Startin' to feel like a dupe about now?

 

[alang1216]

"Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. "

No, they don't, you dunce.

Not only do I say that....but numerous scientists in the field do as well.

I talked about fossils we have found while your quotes focused on fossils we haven't found. Can I assume that means you agree with me?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. "

No, they don't, you dunce.

Not only do I say that....but numerous scientists in the field do as well.

I talked about fossils we have found while your quotes focused on fossils we haven't found. Can I assume that means you agree with me?

'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

I showed that that is not the case.

Clean off your specs, and read slowly:


1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


4. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



Once again, I achieve a victory over ignorance.

 

[alang1216]

"There are no other theories that even come close."

Here are a couple...
[...]
Since there is as much 'scientific evidence' for the theories of these two geniuses as that of Darwinian evolution.....why your attachment to the one and not the others?

You are mixing your apples and your oranges. The theories you listed propose how life first appeared on earth. As I'm sure you've been told before, that has NOTHING to do with Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution only operates on life already in existence. However life first appeared, through natural processes, aliens, or the supernatural, from that initial life all life we currently see on our planet evolved. Period.

 

[alang1216]

'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution. You're welcome to ignore them since they don't support your argument but you don't know what fossils have yet to found.

I see you've reverted to a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. We don't currently have evidence so the evidence cannot exist.