Destroying Darwinism: Getting Technical

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1. I noticed that a recent thread tried to base support for Darwin's theory on the work of neo-Marxist Stephen J. Gould......

Gould used, as a basis for his attempted defense of Darwinism, Karl Marx's theory of history, and called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Gould danced around the fact that he could find no evidence to support either.

Rather than attempt to classify the new and different organism found in the Burgess Shale, Stephen Gould actually characterized the creatures as being so exotic as to defy affinity in classification with any modern groups. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7258/full/460952a.html





2. The Burgess Shale attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts.
Whatever their classification, it is their origin that requires explanation.
How, exactly, does the biological information necessary to produce new characteristics originate?

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion




3. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.
So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?

4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'-

A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books

- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.

So....for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record.
Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.





5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe. Consider this complication: such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.
This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.





6. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?

7. The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content Gitt, W., Dazzling design in miniature, Creation 20(1):6, 1997

Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information.


a. Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. " (Gitt, p. 124). [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]





To short-circuit the expected criticism.....let's remind all that there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution.
This critique is based purely on the science behind Darwin's theory....or the absence of same.



Of course, if any would rather attack me rather than confront the OP....I do love attention.
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
623
Points
315
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

[......]
.
`
I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.

`
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

[......]
.
`



But...but....abu afool......you ignored the questions in the OP!!!

And there is nothing about creationism in the OP.....just science.


So...how about answering the questions posed?

No?

Because they disprove your religious belief in Darwin's proposal?

I see.



I won't return your neg.....your reaction is good enough for me.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,262
Points
0
PC thinks most humans are not good people.

she isn't very jesusy

but then I don't think she even claims that one anymore
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,787
Points
2,165
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.
 

Spoonman

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
18,163
Reaction score
7,660
Points
330
lets take a look at how many missing links have been proven to be not missing links at all.
 

Book of Jeremiah

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
37,635
Reaction score
4,507
Points
1,170
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

[......]
.
`
I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.
`
Anyone who reads Political chic's threads knows she writes her own material and uses good sources / information to back up her position. You are being blatantly dishonest here. What will that gain you? Nothing. Try responding to the OP next time.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.


Could you please point out which parts of the OP deal with " ID, creationism, or creation science" so as to prove that you aren't a moron.
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
623
Points
315
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994


`
I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.
`
Anyone who reads Political chic's threads knows she writes her own material and uses good sources / information to back up her position. You are being blatantly dishonest here. What will that gain you? Nothing. Try responding to the OP next time.
Really?
WHICH Portion of her OP did she write?
All the 'relevant' material was her usual (indeed infinitely Redundant) Out of Context quote snippets.
She NEVER can discuss evolution, merely paste up additional nonsensical quote snippets, with her usual Retarded vertical spacing. (for the illusion of more content)

The Only source/Link she posted was "CreationMinisteries".
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
You consider that "good source" on Science/evolution?
Another CLOWN.
`
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.
`
Anyone who reads Political chic's threads knows she writes her own material and uses good sources / information to back up her position. You are being blatantly dishonest here. What will that gain you? Nothing. Try responding to the OP next time.
Really?
WHICH Portion of her OP did she write?
All the 'relevant' material was her usual (indeed infinitely Redundant) Out of Context quote snippets.
She NEVER can discuss evolution, merely paste up additional nonsensical quote snippets, with her usual Retarded vertical spacing. (for the illusion of more content)

The Only source/Link she posted was "CreationMinisteries".
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
You consider that "good source" on Science/evolution?
Another CLOWN.
`



Look how upset you are.....and still no reference to the OP.

My, oh, my.


That's how fanatics behave, afool.




" Out of Context "

Really?

Show how.



(Pssst.....just between us, do you have an altar to Darwin set up at home?)
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
111,900
Reaction score
22,852
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.
Anyone who understands DNA, it's mind-boggling complexity, scoffs at the notion of random molecules jumbled together would organize themselves accordingly
 

Chuckt

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
3,909
Reaction score
1,493
Points
248
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.
`
I'm happy to be a Jesus freak.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4DeMDjwfZc][11 of 13] dc Talk - Jesus freak - YouTube[/ame]
 

Book of Jeremiah

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
37,635
Reaction score
4,507
Points
1,170
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.
`
Anyone who reads Political chic's threads knows she writes her own material and uses good sources / information to back up her position. You are being blatantly dishonest here. What will that gain you? Nothing. Try responding to the OP next time.
Really?
WHICH Portion of her OP did she write?
All the 'relevant' material was her usual (indeed infinitely Redundant) Out of Context quote snippets.
She NEVER can discuss evolution, merely paste up additional nonsensical quote snippets, with her usual Retarded vertical spacing. (for the illusion of more content)

The Only source/Link she posted was "CreationMinisteries".
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
You consider that "good source" on Science/evolution?
Another CLOWN.
`
You still have not responded to the OP.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,787
Points
2,165
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.
Could you please point out which parts of the OP deal with " ID, creationism, or creation science" so as to prove that you aren't a moron.
Just like Wliberforce, your bristle at criticism. We all know what is your agenda, dear.
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
623
Points
315
Anyone who reads Political chic's threads knows she writes her own material and uses good sources / information to back up her position. You are being blatantly dishonest here. What will that gain you? Nothing. Try responding to the OP next time.
Really?
WHICH Portion of her OP did she write?
All the 'relevant' material was her usual (indeed infinitely Redundant) Out of Context quote snippets.
She NEVER can discuss evolution, merely paste up additional nonsensical quote snippets, with her usual Retarded vertical spacing. (for the illusion of more content)

The Only source/Link she posted was "CreationMinisteries".
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
You consider that "good source" on Science/evolution?

Another CLOWN.
`
You still have not responded to the OP.
And YOU have just 100% Whiffed on our exchange.
100% Conspicuous Cop out.
Another Creationist FRAUD caught Lying.
You FILTHY POS, you accused me of being dishonest but can't back up Your claim about me, or her.

As to the OP.. what do you want me to respond to?
Some ridiculous quotes from an Idiot German Creationist 'Gitt', who is NOT even a Bio-science person?
`
 
Last edited:

Chuckt

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
3,909
Reaction score
1,493
Points
248
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.
Could you please point out which parts of the OP deal with " ID, creationism, or creation science" so as to prove that you aren't a moron.
Just like Wliberforce, your bristle at criticism. We all know what is your agenda, dear.
I guess we'll be withheld from inclusion.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
Ugh. The same, stale, boring logical canards thrown out by the enemies of the Scientific Method that have been quashed soooooooo many time get re-introduced to the naive who think they are novel and insurgent counter arguments.

Congrats PoliChic, no one has ever approached this argument from the basis of the questioning the Cambrian Explosion or that claiming that the fossil record isn't just complete enough....

I won't waste time and bandwidth regurgitating peer reviewed literature that covers all of this. You can find that yourself if you are truly interested (which I doubt).

What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.
Could you please point out which parts of the OP deal with " ID, creationism, or creation science" so as to prove that you aren't a moron.
Just like Wliberforce, your bristle at criticism. We all know what is your agenda, dear.


Could you please point out which parts of the OP deal with " ID, creationism, or creation science" so as to prove that you aren't a moron.


Or....accept the appellation.


And, you are correct.....I don't suffer fools gladly.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top