Darwin To The Rescue

OMG.

Any 'science' based on consensus is not science, it's politics.

Any evolution or global warming that agrees with you is due to the influence of neo-Marxism, and the only way to get grants.

Peer review????

Gads, you're gullible.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’
I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you. Thankfully not everyone feels that way.

If you read about a banker embezzling from his bank would you say all banks are corrupted? Scientists are only human.


"I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you."

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy,
wrote: “that all life is "political."

Anyone who doesn't know that is a fool.
Raise your paw.
 
OMG.

Any 'science' based on consensus is not science, it's politics.

Any evolution or global warming that agrees with you is due to the influence of neo-Marxism, and the only way to get grants.

Peer review????

Gads, you're gullible.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’
I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you. Thankfully not everyone feels that way.

If you read about a banker embezzling from his bank would you say all banks are corrupted? Scientists are only human.



Like the proverbial blind squirrel, you finally found an acorn.
" Scientists are only human."


Now don't post about 'peer review' again.
 
….of Karl Marx.
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..."
That sounds like the basis of Meritiocracy and competitive Capitalism, not "Karl Marx."
Another Bizarro thread/attempt at guilt by association from our Mentally Defective brainwashed Kweationist.


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.
I have News for you Moron... Science doesn't deal in "proof", only math does.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
150 years and an explosion of New Sciences.
None contradict it, and all relevant either are consistent with, or outright help confirm it.
(DNA, Isotopic dating, etc)

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​


`
 
Last edited:
Social Darwinism is not science, nor is it even remotely fact, and Darwinism is mostly about adaptation to new environments, not mutation into new species. It's always amazing how assorted faggots and deviants are always claiming to be 'rationalists' yet never accept that the evolution fictions are not science, just morons seeking to legitimize their mental illnesses via Xian bashing and Gramscian rubbish. Right wingers are no different than left wingers in their frothing lunacy and silly agendas, either.
 
….of Karl Marx.
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..."
That sounds like the basis of Meritiocracy and competitive Capitalism, not "Karl Marx."
Another Bizarro thread/attempt at guilt by association from our Mentally Defective brainwashed Kweationist.


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.
I have News for you Moron... Science doesn't deal in "proof", only math does.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
150 years and an explosion of New Sciences.
None contradict it, and all relevant either are consistent with, or outright help confirm it.
(DNA, Isotopic dating, etc)

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​


`



"Science doesn't deal in "proof","


Nothing more need be said.....you are a self-identified imbecile......bet you're a government school grad.



Not conjecture, opinion, 'feelings'......experiments leading to conclusions.

Steps of the Scientific Method
  • Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



As proven....PROVEN....throughout this thread......there is no proof of Darwn's theory, and there is evidence that it is false.
Yet Marxist need it to advance their fraudulent views, hence it is taught as 'true, fact, proven'....and imbeciles buy it like it was on sale.
 
"I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you."

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy,
wrote: “that all life is "political."

Anyone who doesn't know that is a fool.
Raise your paw.
Does that make you a Marxist?



Unlike you, it reveals me as one with an education, one who reads books.

And my association with Gramschi follows this rule:
"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),
 
Social Darwinism is not science, nor is it even remotely fact, and Darwinism is mostly about adaptation to new environments, not mutation into new species. It's always amazing how assorted faggots and deviants are always claiming to be 'rationalists' yet never accept that the evolution fictions are not science, just morons seeking to legitimize their mental illnesses via Xian bashing and Gramscian rubbish. Right wingers are no different than left wingers in their frothing lunacy and silly agendas, either.


Why is Darwinism taught in school as though it were proven fact?


It certainly isn't right wingers who own and operate the school system.
 
"I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you."

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy,
wrote: “that all life is "political."

Anyone who doesn't know that is a fool.
Raise your paw.
Does that make you a Marxist?
Unlike you, it reveals me as one with an education, one who reads books.

And my association with Gramschi follows this rule:
"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854)
So you're only partially a Marxist. Got it. What percent Marxist are you?

If you're so well read you would know that abu afak was spot on when he said "Science doesn't deal in "proof". Science deals only with evidence. Every scientific theory must fit the available evidence. Of course that PROVES nothing, just as Newtonian physics was the best available theory until Einstein made his discoveries.
 
Social Darwinism is not science, nor is it even remotely fact, and Darwinism is mostly about adaptation to new environments, not mutation into new species. It's always amazing how assorted faggots and deviants are always claiming to be 'rationalists' yet never accept that the evolution fictions are not science, just morons seeking to legitimize their mental illnesses via Xian bashing and Gramscian rubbish. Right wingers are no different than left wingers in their frothing lunacy and silly agendas, either.
Why is Darwinism taught in school as though it were proven fact?

It certainly isn't right wingers who own and operate the school system.
Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world. The supernatural is taught in religion class.

Schools in this country are locally run so right wingers do own and operate school systems.
 
"I know you love to mix science and politics because they are inseparable to you."

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy,
wrote: “that all life is "political."

Anyone who doesn't know that is a fool.
Raise your paw.
Does that make you a Marxist?
Unlike you, it reveals me as one with an education, one who reads books.

And my association with Gramschi follows this rule:
"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854)
So you're only partially a Marxist. Got it. What percent Marxist are you?

If you're so well read you would know that abu afak was spot on when he said "Science doesn't deal in "proof". Science deals only with evidence. Every scientific theory must fit the available evidence. Of course that PROVES nothing, just as Newtonian physics was the best available theory until Einstein made his discoveries.



The part that states that all life is political.

I wrote that before.....read more carefully, after all, you have all the time you don't spend on books.
 
Social Darwinism is not science, nor is it even remotely fact, and Darwinism is mostly about adaptation to new environments, not mutation into new species. It's always amazing how assorted faggots and deviants are always claiming to be 'rationalists' yet never accept that the evolution fictions are not science, just morons seeking to legitimize their mental illnesses via Xian bashing and Gramscian rubbish. Right wingers are no different than left wingers in their frothing lunacy and silly agendas, either.
Why is Darwinism taught in school as though it were proven fact?

It certainly isn't right wingers who own and operate the school system.
Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world. The supernatural is taught in religion class.

Schools in this country are locally run so right wingers do own and operate school systems.


"Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world."


Even well-known scientists admit it is made-up fable.


To correctly understand why Darwinism is given the appreciation it truly does not deserve, consider this admission:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories. We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


As per the OP, Darwin is most valuable as an asset to Karl Marx.
You've been taught Darwin's theory because of neo-Marxist influence in the schools.


These academicians bring the bias of their politics and lay it at the feet of Charles Darwin. The ‘scientists’ are atheistic Marxists, and Darwin serves their political views.


Stephen Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!


In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
And the goal of this fake science, Darwinism, is to disassociate Americans from religion.


And it has been, largely, successful.
 
Social Darwinism is not science, nor is it even remotely fact, and Darwinism is mostly about adaptation to new environments, not mutation into new species. It's always amazing how assorted faggots and deviants are always claiming to be 'rationalists' yet never accept that the evolution fictions are not science, just morons seeking to legitimize their mental illnesses via Xian bashing and Gramscian rubbish. Right wingers are no different than left wingers in their frothing lunacy and silly agendas, either.
Why is Darwinism taught in school as though it were proven fact?

It certainly isn't right wingers who own and operate the school system.
Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world. The supernatural is taught in religion class.

Schools in this country are locally run so right wingers do own and operate school systems.


"Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world."


Even well-known scientists admit it is made-up fable.


To correctly understand why Darwinism is given the appreciation it truly does not deserve, consider this admission:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories. We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


As per the OP, Darwin is most valuable as an asset to Karl Marx.
You've been taught Darwin's theory because of neo-Marxist influence in the schools.


These academicians bring the bias of their politics and lay it at the feet of Charles Darwin. The ‘scientists’ are atheistic Marxists, and Darwin serves their political views.


Stephen Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!


In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
And the goal of this fake science, Darwinism, is to disassociate Americans from religion.


And it has been, largely, successful.
Do you actually read about the people you quote? If so you know Richard Lewontin never doubted the fundamental tenant of Darwin, descent from a common ancestor. The mechanisms of evolution are certainly more complex than Darwin understood, 150 years ago, but no one should criticize him for that.

As for Gould, since you insist that science and religion are in conflict, it is hardly surprising you see him as an adversary. Some people would say that seeing how God actually works is worth more than bronze-age mythology.
 
Social Darwinism is not science, nor is it even remotely fact, and Darwinism is mostly about adaptation to new environments, not mutation into new species. It's always amazing how assorted faggots and deviants are always claiming to be 'rationalists' yet never accept that the evolution fictions are not science, just morons seeking to legitimize their mental illnesses via Xian bashing and Gramscian rubbish. Right wingers are no different than left wingers in their frothing lunacy and silly agendas, either.
Why is Darwinism taught in school as though it were proven fact?

It certainly isn't right wingers who own and operate the school system.
Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world. The supernatural is taught in religion class.

Schools in this country are locally run so right wingers do own and operate school systems.


"Darwin is taught in science classes since it it the best explanation of the natural world."


Even well-known scientists admit it is made-up fable.


To correctly understand why Darwinism is given the appreciation it truly does not deserve, consider this admission:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories. We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


As per the OP, Darwin is most valuable as an asset to Karl Marx.
You've been taught Darwin's theory because of neo-Marxist influence in the schools.


These academicians bring the bias of their politics and lay it at the feet of Charles Darwin. The ‘scientists’ are atheistic Marxists, and Darwin serves their political views.


Stephen Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!


In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
And the goal of this fake science, Darwinism, is to disassociate Americans from religion.


And it has been, largely, successful.
Do you actually read about the people you quote? If so you know Richard Lewontin never doubted the fundamental tenant of Darwin, descent from a common ancestor. The mechanisms of evolution are certainly more complex than Darwin understood, 150 years ago, but no one should criticize him for that.

As for Gould, since you insist that science and religion are in conflict, it is hardly surprising you see him as an adversary. Some people would say that seeing how God actually works is worth more than bronze-age mythology.

"Do you actually read about the people you quote? If so you know Richard Lewontin never doubted the fundamental tenant of Darwin"

Show the proof he based it on.



Did you ever read......anything????



Lewontin is a Marxist....Darwin is his excuse.


Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:

“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote


What a coincidence.....exactly what I've said!



So....the theory is less about science and more about attacking the enemy of communism....religion.
And from a Marxist no less!




So once again we find that it is you who have never done any reading.



And…you’re a government school grad?

“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated
 
"Do you actually read about the people you quote? If so you know Richard Lewontin never doubted the fundamental tenant of Darwin"

Show the proof he based it on.



Did you ever read......anything????



Lewontin is a Marxist....Darwin is his excuse.


Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:

“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote


What a coincidence.....exactly what I've said!



So....the theory is less about science and more about attacking the enemy of communism....religion.
And from a Marxist no less!




So once again we find that it is you who have never done any reading.



And…you’re a government school grad?

“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated
To your ideologically addled brain anyone who believes in evolution is a Marxist/atheist but there are plenty of believers of evolution who are neither. I believe the Pope is such an example.
 
"Do you actually read about the people you quote? If so you know Richard Lewontin never doubted the fundamental tenant of Darwin"

Show the proof he based it on.



Did you ever read......anything????



Lewontin is a Marxist....Darwin is his excuse.


Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:

“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote


What a coincidence.....exactly what I've said!



So....the theory is less about science and more about attacking the enemy of communism....religion.
And from a Marxist no less!




So once again we find that it is you who have never done any reading.



And…you’re a government school grad?

“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated
To your ideologically addled brain anyone who believes in evolution is a Marxist/atheist but there are plenty of believers of evolution who are neither. I believe the Pope is such an example.



I used to wonder how dumb some folks are, to be unable to connect the dots.....

....you explained it, here:

Asked if you are a government school grad, who has never read a book not assigned by the neo-Marxist school system.....
“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated
 
I used to wonder how dumb some folks are, to be unable to connect the dots.....

....you explained it, here:

Asked if you are a government school grad, who has never read a book not assigned by the neo-Marxist school system.....
“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “
Easy To Convince The Uneducated
There are almost 100,000 public schools in the US. How many have you attended?
 

Forum List

Back
Top