Darwin's Apparatchiks

[PoliticalChic]

So...how the heck could ridiculous, failed doctrines such as communism and Darwinism have gained such a degree of acceptance???

How??

By infecting the schools...and passing that infection on to unquestioning students.






1. There are, of course, links between education and professional success, between education and the ability to read and write. And obviously we need well-educated people in order to be able to compete with other countries. But for at least the few generations in the Western world there has been no link between higher education and human decency.


2. The two greatest evils of the 20th century -- fascism and communism -- were often headed by well-educated individuals. And communism was supported in the West almost exclusively by intellectuals. You almost had to be an intellectual in order to support the mass murderers Lenin, Stalin and Mao.




3. Acceptance of these views has become the raison d'être of our schools, and a belief in Darwin is the first requirement.

Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing!

Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been ‘brainwashed.” Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas.

Brainwashed?
Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.


Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.


Universities have become to Leftist thought what a Christian seminary is to Christianity.
The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians. Dennis Prager, "Still The Best Hope"



a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.


b. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ANRgcvjkk&feature=fvwrel]Eric Holder D.O.J "We Must Brainwash People About Guns" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

 

[Hollie]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

A little more about the political perspective of our evolutionary biologist?


" The photographs that adorn a man’s office speak volumes about him. In the office of the late Stephen J. Gould, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, peering down upon that prolific desk, is the photograph of Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), the revolutionary who founded the Communist dictatorship in Russia — a materialistic, godless system."

According to a recent article by Lowell Ponte, a former roving editor for Reader’s Digest, “the theory of evolution became [Gould’s] substitute for religion.” Robert Wright, in his book, The Moral Animal, describes this as the sort of “faith” that “no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question.” That is a strange philosophy for one who called himself a “scientist” — a term which presupposes someone in a quest for knowledge, whatever its source.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/525-stephen-j-gould-1941-2002

 

[Hollie]

So...how the heck could ridiculous, failed doctrines such as communism and Darwinism have gained such a degree of acceptance???

How??

By infecting the schools...and passing that infection on to unquestioning students.






1. There are, of course, links between education and professional success, between education and the ability to read and write. And obviously we need well-educated people in order to be able to compete with other countries. But for at least the few generations in the Western world there has been no link between higher education and human decency.


2. The two greatest evils of the 20th century -- fascism and communism -- were often headed by well-educated individuals. And communism was supported in the West almost exclusively by intellectuals. You almost had to be an intellectual in order to support the mass murderers Lenin, Stalin and Mao.




3. Acceptance of these views has become the raison d'être of our schools, and a belief in Darwin is the first requirement.

Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing!

Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been ‘brainwashed.” Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas.

Brainwashed?
Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.


Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.


Universities have become to Leftist thought what a Christian seminary is to Christianity.
The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians. Dennis Prager, "Still The Best Hope"



a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.


b. Eric Holder D.O.J "We Must Brainwash People About Guns" - YouTube

Evolution is a failed doctrine?

I understand that's what you're taught at the Harun Yahya madrassah, but your goofy pronouncements conflict with the relevant science community.

Drink the Kool-Aid, dear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

1. You begin with a lie...your usual...."...angry fundamentalists..."

I am neither of those.

But...you are a dunce.




2. Then, you proceed with a prepared speech with a rant about creationists....

....none of which has anything to do with the OP.

Your post is a tribute to Attention Deficit Disorder.

Your incompetence is an inspiration to idiots everywhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Foxfyre, you are so right. Having a degree in Anthropology and being an Evangelical Christian, I can tell you that my reconcilliation of the two different theories as being complimentary is met with anger much, much more by those who consider themselves "Darwinistic Snobs" as opposed to Christians. Their stance that the two are completely at odds with one another cannot be challenged in their mind. Hollie has no desire to understand or know any Christian fundamentalists or their beliefs for that matter. She labels Political Chic as one, but I have doubts that she could recognize one if they bit her in the ass. Political Chic is not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. Quite enlightening actually.

Score. Match. And Game. Go home Hollie and practice. You're obviously outclassed on this one...

 

[Hollie]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

That was a flaccid attempt on your part to avoid addressing my comments.

But honestly, I suspected you might. When people use terms such as "Darwinist", they practically shout out their biases and their agenda.

As to losing credibility, you might try defining your terms here. Are you suggesting that the relevant science community is going to abandon the various science disciplines that support evolution?

Please identify for us the various teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology in place of Christian fundamentalist notions.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society?

Sign me Confused and Conflicted...

I have no problem with any beliefs in this connection....

..my contention is that one must know all that goes into a calculation in order to come up with the correct answer.


For example.....those who champion Darwin probably had no knowledge of the connections to communism, and such views from 'evolutionary biologists.'

There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism.

Your post is a ludicrous joke.

 

[Hollie]

Foxfyre, you are so right. Having a degree in Anthropology and being an Evangelical Christian, I can tell you that my reconcilliation of the two different theories as being complimentary is met with anger much, much more by those who consider themselves "Darwinistic Snobs" as opposed to Christians. Their stance that the two are completely at odds with one another cannot be challenged in their mind. Hollie has no desire to understand or know any Christian fundamentalists or their beliefs for that matter. She labels Political Chic as one, but I have doubts that she could recognize one if they bit her in the ass. Political Chic is not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. Quite enlightening actually.

Score. Match. And Game. Go home Hollie and practice. You're obviously outclassed on this one...

And another angry fundamentalist who sidesteps any attempt at addressing my earlier comments.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.' Science is anything BUT settled. Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe. When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us. Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away. AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years. Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be. I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science. We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory. Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work. The FDA only requires that they beat placebo. We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago. We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.

We are taught by science that life cannot be generated from inorganic matter, then we are told, 'oh well it DID happen once.' And there are people who are clueless enough and dense enough to buy that contradictory shit. Bottom line, we don't really know how life on earth came about. We also don't know if there is life outside our own solar system, and if there is even how to find it or how to get there.

I find the board know it alls most boring indeed. They have it all sewn up in their microscopic little two celled minds and make great haste to label those of us who have a real education in science, and the ability to think critically about such things as religion and the origin of the species as stupid. And yet they cannot cite one single study to show probability that their theory is correct. Not one. One theory is as good as another. None of them have been shown to be scientifically valid. None of them. Evolution is not even mathematically possible as shown in another thread. (And those who published this are mainstream scientists completely aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics.) Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves.

Can't find one study where the theory of evolution has been shown to be scientifically valid?

How about a whole basic college biology textbook?

Would a 600 page biology textbook be enough for you?

Try reading one before spouting your total ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

1. You begin with a lie...your usual...."...angry fundamentalists..."

I am neither of those.

But...you are a dunce.




2. Then, you proceed with a prepared speech with a rant about creationists....

....none of which has anything to do with the OP.

Your post is a tribute to Attention Deficit Disorder.

Your incompetence is an inspiration to idiots everywhere.

Fundamentalists do tend to get cranky when their sacred cows are brought out of the stocks.

Come on PC, show us some more of your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. It gets more laughable by the minute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"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.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

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, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', 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," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read it, then sit down and shut up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society?

Sign me Confused and Conflicted...

I have no problem with any beliefs in this connection....

..my contention is that one must know all that goes into a calculation in order to come up with the correct answer.


For example.....those who champion Darwin probably had no knowledge of the connections to communism, and such views from 'evolutionary biologists.'

There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism.

Your post is a ludicrous joke.

You have made a slight error:
You are a moron.

Fixed.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"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.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

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, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', 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," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

 

[Hollie]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"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.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

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, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', 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," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

Oh, cool. PC is now promoting the space alien thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"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.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

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, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', 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," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views