Darwin To The Rescue

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
….of Karl Marx.


Without Charles Darwin, Karl Marx would merely be a footnote to history.



The month of October had great significance some 180 years ago, when Charles Darwin wrote this in his Autobiography:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work..."
Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins.

At age 29, Darwin had his theory, a work in progress. As of this day, it remains a work in progress, yet to be proven. From the start, it was the support for Marx’s ideas, which also, at the cost of millions of lives, remains yet to be proven.




Now…the details of that 'partnership'.


1.On the very same day, February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born.

“Lincoln, whose life’s mission was to reconnect the nation with the Founder’s thinking, became the most brave, eloquent, and consequential proponent of the idea that human dignity inheres in the capacity of individuals to shape their own lives’ trajectories by exercising their natural rights to make moral choices. Darwin, however, unleashed an idea that seemed to challenge humanity’s understanding of its dignity.” George Will.


2.While Lincoln owns the position of champion of freedom and liberty, Darwin has become the point of the spear for Marxism and Progressivism. If Marx had been correct, the Declaration of Independence could not be correct about God-given unalienable natural rights.

Marxism: There is no God:
"This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."The Schwarz Report | Essays



3. But Marx, proceeding on so-called ‘scientific socialism,’ needed a way to use science against his greatest foe, religion. And Darwin provided that.

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.



4. Marxists, Progressives, well-placed in academia and the media report the tenuous theory of Darwin as fact….as though it was proven, a law of scinece. It is neither, and, in fact, evidence disproves it.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science" most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies. This impression is seriously misleading. Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17

"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.




Over 150 years and not only has no proof of Darwin’s wish been found…but evidence to the contrary has!


But, heck, it all works out for the Left as long as government school grads never do their own reading or research…

…...or thinking.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
5. Darwin named his opus “On the Origin of Species.”

One might expect this thesis to explain exactly that.

Not so fast.


“Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection.

Out of these simple ingredients, conceived to be operating blindly over hundreds of millions of years, he conjured up change that seems like the deliberate unfolding of a grand plan, designed and carried out with superhuman genius. Could nature really have pulled out of its hat the invention of life, of increasingly sophisticated life-forms and, ultimately, the unique-in-the-cosmos (so far as we know) human mind—given no strategy but trial and error? The mindless accumulation of small changes? It is an astounding idea. Yet Darwin’s brilliant and lovely theory explains how it could have happened.

Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.” Giving Up Darwin
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
6. Darwin didn’t come up with a new idea or technique.


Folks involved in agriculture and the raising of animals for one reason or another have known for eons how to select those with characteristics that they wish, for color or size or any characteristic that happens to differ from the general population.

But there was never…NEVER….a case where the changes followed a path that led to a new species.

Growers knew that there was a limit these tiny alterations, and at some point if selection continued, it always resulted in death.

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
David Berlinski





Darwin’s theory was simply ‘what if.’ In a century and a half, with the greatest number of scientists in history working to prove the theory…..it remains no more than ‘what if.’
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Can You Admit You’ve Been Sold A Bill of Goods?
'Cause you have been, if you believe Darwin's theory has been proven.



sell (someone) a bill of goods, to defraud or deceive someone
Definition of sell a bill of goods | Dictionary.com




If you accept Darwin’s Theory as true, fact, proven….you’ve been sold.


7. If Darwin was correct, the simplest organisms come first….no explanation as to how they arrived in the first place….but then accumulation of tiny changes result in more and more complex life….new species.

But the evidence is quite the opposite.

“Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.

Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.

But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing.”
Giving Up Darwin




"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164




Ever wonder why you never has the gumption to ask the question in government school?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
8. The ‘evidence’ is largely in opposition to Darwin’s theory.

“...representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up.”
Giving Up Darwin



"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




" The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.

How about the sudden.....SUDDEN....appearance of vertebrates in the Cambrian??



In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off


Sooo.....what does it mean when the evidence actually disproves Darwin's theory?????


And why is the theory taught as though it was proven true?????
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
9. The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.
The discovery turns Darwin's 'tree of life' upside down!

a."Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In On the Origin of Species (1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus " Tree of life (biology) - Wikipedia

He begins with one simple organism at the bottom, and more and more as they become more complex.


b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
Yet it is taught in government school as though it is a law, and a proven fact.
Why?






10. Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory.

Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:


a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Unknown Forum



Yet, without Darwin’s theory, atheistic Marxists and Progressive have quite a hill to climb.
 

fncceo

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
23,096
Reaction score
5,758
Points
290
that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Nearly the same instant in geological time can be millions of years.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Nearly the same instant in geological time can be millions of years.

My perfectly constructed exposee of the false Darwinian narrative has nothing to do with timeframe.

Focus like a laser.....I prove....PROVE.....that the facts, the fossil record show the very opposite of what Darwin poses.


a. you cannot refute what I have posted....and linked and sourced.

b. why are folks....you.....so loath to confront the lie of of the orthodoxy????



Grow a pair, pal.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Sooo…..one of those shallow thinkers said: “…. geological time can be millions of years.”
So what????
The possible time frame hides the problems with Darwin’s theory?

Nope.

The essential methodology of Darwin's theory have not been proven right.....and, in fact, have been proven wrong.
Yet government school forces it on the uninformed.



11. “Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp; its simplicity is the heart of its brilliance and power.

Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species…. molecular biology … explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career.

Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology.

Each gene is a segment of DNA…. each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid….Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish.

[But!] If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism…”
Giving Up Darwin



Nearly two full centuries with no proof of Darwin's theory....


....yet the cowardly worship it as though it was on the tablets down from Sinai.
 

LordBrownTrout

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
28,168
Reaction score
5,974
Points
280
Location
South Texas
There is no transitional record to support evolution. It's a theory. The professors I had in geology in grad had openly mocked his theory but then that was 25 years ago. I wouldn't argue against humans mental state devolving now.
 

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
Living things evolve... get over it.
You've never seen an organism evolve into an entirely different kind of organism and neither has anyone else! You're just spouting slogans.

The following scenario is not only compatible with the fossil record but perfectly reflects it. Abiogenesis and evolution are engineering and mathematical
monstrosities.

What the fossil record actually shows is a series of episodically discrete, creative events over geological time, beginning with the direct creation of microorganisms from nonliving, albeit, previously existing material. After that, the record evinces the appearances of increasingly more complex, varied and fully formed organisms chemically engineered and assembled instantaneously by an intelligent designer (God) out of nonliving, albeit, previously existing material over geological time. Hence, the preceding creatures of different kinds within this episodic series of creative events are not directly related to the later creatures of different kinds within the series; that is to say, the later creatures of different kinds within this episodic series of creative events are not biologically descendent from the preceding creatures of different kinds within the series.

At the same time, in the midst of this episodic series of creative events and since its culmination, some species have gone extinct while the others have been changing, albeit, within a cyclically limited range of genetic mutation relative to changing environmental conditions per the mechanism of natural selection. Of course, the other mechanisms of adaptive radiation include the gene flow of migration and the variation in the relative frequency of different genotypes (genetic drift). We should expect that all terrestrial lifeforms would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within each kind of species respectively per the mechanisms of adaptive radiation. Accordingly, the shared similarities in genotypes/phenotypes among species are the episodically copied components of a foundationally universal, necessary and increasingly complex motif of a common design. Hence, these components are predicated on previously existing designs and then modified to affect the creation of similar, albeit, new and morphologically distinct creatures over time. This then is the only sense in which the variously different kinds of species are “related.” It would be a very odd and sparsely populated world indeed if the ensemble of terrestrial lifeforms were wildly different in terms of their genetic foundations, given the necessity of a shared organic source of energy in the food chain.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Neither science nor a free society benefit from the teaching of Darwinism as fact....


....but neo-Marxism does.
 

fncceo

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
23,096
Reaction score
5,758
Points
290
You've never seen an organism evolve into an entirely different kind of organism and neither has anyone else!
You get that it takes more than a few weeks, right?

 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You've never seen an organism evolve into an entirely different kind of organism and neither has anyone else!
You get that it takes more than a few weeks, right?



It has never......NEVER.....happened!!


"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.




Over 150 years and not only has no proof of Darwin’s wish been found…but evidence to the contrary has!



"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
David Berlinski


Yet you'll swear to it.


How about you stop being afraid to do some research.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,340
Reaction score
28,381
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
It has never......NEVER.....happened!!
OK, if you say so... all creatures, great and small, were created at the same time.



What is wrong with you?

Why so fearful to truth?




According to Darwin, all living things began with one single cell, and random changes have accumulated to make more and more complex organisms.


There is proof....PROOF.....of the very opposite occurring.

Folks involved in agriculture and the raising of animals for one reason or another have known for eons how to select those with characteristics that they wish, for color or size or any characteristic that happens to differ from the general population.

But there was never…NEVER….a case where the changes followed a path that led to a new species.

Growers knew that there was a limit these tiny alterations, and at some point if selection continued, it always resulted in death.

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
David Berlinski




Marxism requires atheism, and Darwin's theory is the best argument against religion.

That is why the Progressive education industry pushes his theory.




Wise up.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
137,968
Reaction score
12,278
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Sooo…..one of those shallow thinkers said: “…. geological time can be millions of years.”
So what????
The possible time frame hides the problems with Darwin’s theory?

Nope.

The essential methodology of Darwin's theory have not been proven right.....and, in fact, have been proven wrong.
Yet government school forces it on the uninformed.



11. “Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp; its simplicity is the heart of its brilliance and power.

Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species…. molecular biology … explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career.

Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology.

Each gene is a segment of DNA…. each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid….Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish.

[But!] If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism…”
Giving Up Darwin



Nearly two full centuries with no proof of Darwin's theory....


....yet the cowardly worship it as though it was on the tablets down from Sinai.
Thousand of years and God has yet to become present to his creation and establish his existence making him another theory of human evolution.
 

fncceo

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
23,096
Reaction score
5,758
Points
290
It has never......NEVER.....happened!!
OK, if you say so... all creatures, great and small, were created at the same time.



What is wrong with you?

Why so fearful to truth?




According to Darwin, all living things began with one single cell, and random changes have accumulated to make more and more complex organisms.


There is proof....PROOF.....of the very opposite occurring.

Folks involved in agriculture and the raising of animals for one reason or another have known for eons how to select those with characteristics that they wish, for color or size or any characteristic that happens to differ from the general population.

But there was never…NEVER….a case where the changes followed a path that led to a new species.

Growers knew that there was a limit these tiny alterations, and at some point if selection continued, it always resulted in death.

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
David Berlinski




Marxism requires atheism, and Darwin's theory is the best argument against religion.

That is why the Progressive education industry pushes his theory.




Wise up.
Hey, I'm agreeing with you. There is only one explanation for life in the Universe.

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top