Double, Double, Toil and Trouble....

[bluzman61]

Personally, I admire the way you define anything you feel is bad as being "Leftist". Anyone able to cast characters as different as Stalin and Hitler as leftists is a talent. I'm not sure way Freud is in the mix but since you like to politicize science (e.g., Darwin) I'm not very surprised.

Wait.....you don't know that Stalin and Hitler were both allies and both Leftists???

How dumb can you be????

Don't you know that Hitler's party was the national SOCIALIST party????

The depth of your ignorance is truly amazing.

Hitler and Stalin had a pact on paper and then invaded each others countries. Is that your criteria, what the paper says trumps what actually happened? Got it.

Hitler was an ultra-nationalist, hardly the mark of the Left.

Using your logic, I must assume you think that North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, must be a democracy. You should come down from your ivy tower and join us in the real world.

Hey there history buff, do you even KNOW what "Nazi" is an abbreviation of? National SOCIALIST. Please do your homework before spouting off your garbage. Thank you.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Personally, I admire the way you define anything you feel is bad as being "Leftist". Anyone able to cast characters as different as Stalin and Hitler as leftists is a talent. I'm not sure way Freud is in the mix but since you like to politicize science (e.g., Darwin) I'm not very surprised.

Wait.....you don't know that Stalin and Hitler were both allies and both Leftists???

How dumb can you be????

Don't you know that Hitler's party was the national SOCIALIST party????

The depth of your ignorance is truly amazing.

Hitler and Stalin had a pact on paper and then invaded each others countries. Is that your criteria, what the paper says trumps what actually happened? Got it.

Hitler was an ultra-nationalist, hardly the mark of the Left.

Using your logic, I must assume you think that North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, must be a democracy. You should come down from your ivy tower and join us in the real world.

Liberals are too stupid to read what history was all about because if they knew history they wouldnt be stupid liberals.

The Road to Serfdom | Friedrich A. Hayek

The description below is written for the Definitive Edition of Road to Serfdom which is sold in the Mises Store and can be previewed here: Google Preview. Finally, here is an edition of Road to Serfdom that does justice to its monumental status in the history of liberty.

mises.org

Alright Mr Historian, which libertarian society, past or present, would you want to live in?

I am satisfied in the one i am in right now. As long as it doesnt go any further left when the brown turd Oblummer took office. We need to educate kids that there are winners and losers in life, but in the United States if you are losing, buckle down, set your chin firm and try again for success. Morgan Freeman says it all.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It appears, after I exploded your lie about Darwin, you've thrown in the towel.

As usual, a day late and a dollar short.

You mean your deep and insightful boast: "I simply proved that Darwin's thesis is considered true for one reason only: it supports Marxism"?

You proved absolutely nothing. Darwin's thesis (descent from a common ancestor) is a scientific fact that you could not dispute. The best you were able to do was find gaps in the fossil record and make your wild claims (sans evidence).

If Marx used Darwin to support his economics that has little to do with Darwin. If you possessed any imagination and could do more than cut and paste (and insult) you could easily make the case that Darwin's work supported the free market with all the players competing for their economic survival.

"Darwin's thesis (descent from a common ancestor) is a scientific fact that you could not dispute. "

Watch me:

"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.

"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

And I proved you a liar yet again.


NEXT!

No you proved yourself a builder of Straw men: "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."

So? We have never seen gravity, only the effects it has on mass. So too, evolution.

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

 

[alang1216]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

 

[alang1216]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Actually it is true, but for the sake of argument let's say there are NO 'intermediate' fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that most animals that lived have gone extinct. That is not a problem for either creationism or evolution. However the fossil record also shows the appearance of new species of animals, not just in the pre-Cambrian but all through the fossil record. This is not a problem for evolution, it is just what it would predict. I wonder how this fits into a theory of creationism? It obviously doesn't fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis since it is not a single episode of creation but many episodes over the entire history of life.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Actually it is true, but for the sake of argument let's say there are NO 'intermediate' fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that most animals that lived have gone extinct. That is not a problem for either creationism or evolution. However the fossil record also shows the appearance of new species of animals, not just in the pre-Cambrian but all through the fossil record. This is not a problem for evolution, it is just what it would predict. I wonder how this fits into a theory of creationism? It obviously doesn't fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis since it is not a single episode of creation but many episodes over the entire history of life.

How do the Home Sapien remains discovered In Situ in Middle Pliocene deposits in Castenedolo, Italy in 1860 that modern scientists ignore fit into the Darwinian picture they've built up with their scientific consensus?

*****SMILE*****

 

[alang1216]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Actually it is true, but for the sake of argument let's say there are NO 'intermediate' fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that most animals that lived have gone extinct. That is not a problem for either creationism or evolution. However the fossil record also shows the appearance of new species of animals, not just in the pre-Cambrian but all through the fossil record. This is not a problem for evolution, it is just what it would predict. I wonder how this fits into a theory of creationism? It obviously doesn't fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis since it is not a single episode of creation but many episodes over the entire history of life.

View attachment 333277

How do the Home Sapien remains discovered In Situ in Middle Pliocene deposits in Castenedolo, Italy in 1860 that modern scientists ignore fit into the Darwinian picture they've built up with their scientific consensus?

*****SMILE*****

I don't know. Got a link or some more info?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Actually it is true, but for the sake of argument let's say there are NO 'intermediate' fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that most animals that lived have gone extinct. That is not a problem for either creationism or evolution. However the fossil record also shows the appearance of new species of animals, not just in the pre-Cambrian but all through the fossil record. This is not a problem for evolution, it is just what it would predict. I wonder how this fits into a theory of creationism? It obviously doesn't fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis since it is not a single episode of creation but many episodes over the entire history of life.

Go read Genesis again, in the beginning there, God placed animals upon the Earth. Doesnt say what type and how long they lived, did they?

 

[justinacolmena]

attempt to erase all signs of the faith that built said civilization,

They were already atheists, and they only make the sign of the cross to steal communion wine from the Catholics.

Civilization was nothing but civil servitude and slavery to the over-entitled royalty.

They never responded when they were served with the «cahiers de doléances» of the estates of the people who had petitioned them for a redress of grievances.

 

[alang1216]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Actually it is true, but for the sake of argument let's say there are NO 'intermediate' fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that most animals that lived have gone extinct. That is not a problem for either creationism or evolution. However the fossil record also shows the appearance of new species of animals, not just in the pre-Cambrian but all through the fossil record. This is not a problem for evolution, it is just what it would predict. I wonder how this fits into a theory of creationism? It obviously doesn't fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis since it is not a single episode of creation but many episodes over the entire history of life.

Go read Genesis again, in the beginning there, God placed animals upon the Earth. Doesnt say what type and how long they lived, did they?

Maybe you should go read Genesis again: in the beginning there, God placed animals upon the Earth. I don't recall any mention of him ever again creating animals after that day. Did I miss it? Is he still creating new species or 'kinds'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Go to the tallest mountain you can find, just off it, and you will see gravity working...

Dig up as many fossils as you can find and you will see evolution working.

That's another lie.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Actually it is true, but for the sake of argument let's say there are NO 'intermediate' fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that most animals that lived have gone extinct. That is not a problem for either creationism or evolution. However the fossil record also shows the appearance of new species of animals, not just in the pre-Cambrian but all through the fossil record. This is not a problem for evolution, it is just what it would predict. I wonder how this fits into a theory of creationism? It obviously doesn't fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis since it is not a single episode of creation but many episodes over the entire history of life.

Go read Genesis again, in the beginning there, God placed animals upon the Earth. Doesnt say what type and how long they lived, did they?

Maybe you should go read Genesis again: in the beginning there, God placed animals upon the Earth. I don't recall any mention of him ever again creating animals after that day. Did I miss it? Is he still creating new species or 'kinds'?

Nor do you have any way of knowing if the All-Powerful simply had a mechanism in the animals that allowed them to correspond to alterations in the environment.


Simply put, there is more evidence for God-creation than for Darwin's theory.....yet the latter is treated as fact when it clearly isn't.

It is anti-religion propaganda that serves the interests of Marxism.



The definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

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."
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/



You're simply not bright enough, nor strong enough, to connect those dots.

 

[alang1216]

Nor do you have any way of knowing if the All-Powerful simply had a mechanism in the animals that allowed them to correspond to alterations in the environment.

Simply put, there is more evidence for God-creation than for Darwin's theory.....yet the latter is treated as fact when it clearly isn't.

You're simply not bright enough, nor strong enough, to connect those dots.

So you're saying that there is some miraculous mechanism in animals that God uses to enable new species to appear in response to alterations in the environment? I'm not too bright but it seems like you just connected the dots of God-creation and Darwin's theory.

Face it, the only 'evidence' you have for creationism is supposed 'holes' in the fossil record and the possibility, sans evidence, for some miraculous 'mechanism'. The fossils we do have fit very nicely in the existing ToE. Likewise the fields of anatomy, biology, anthropology, and geology all support Darwin's theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nor do you have any way of knowing if the All-Powerful simply had a mechanism in the animals that allowed them to correspond to alterations in the environment.

Simply put, there is more evidence for God-creation than for Darwin's theory.....yet the latter is treated as fact when it clearly isn't.

You're simply not bright enough, nor strong enough, to connect those dots.

So you're saying that there is some miraculous mechanism in animals that God uses to enable new species to appear in response to alterations in the environment? I'm not too bright but it seems like you just connected the dots of God-creation and Darwin's theory.

Face it, the only 'evidence' you have for creationism is supposed 'holes' in the fossil record and the possibility, sans evidence, for some miraculous 'mechanism'. The fossils we do have fit very nicely in the existing ToE. Likewise the fields of anatomy, biology, anthropology, and geology all support Darwin's theory.

There is less evidence for Darwin's theory.....

 

[alang1216]

Nor do you have any way of knowing if the All-Powerful simply had a mechanism in the animals that allowed them to correspond to alterations in the environment.

Simply put, there is more evidence for God-creation than for Darwin's theory.....yet the latter is treated as fact when it clearly isn't.

You're simply not bright enough, nor strong enough, to connect those dots.

So you're saying that there is some miraculous mechanism in animals that God uses to enable new species to appear in response to alterations in the environment? I'm not too bright but it seems like you just connected the dots of God-creation and Darwin's theory.

Face it, the only 'evidence' you have for creationism is supposed 'holes' in the fossil record and the possibility, sans evidence, for some miraculous 'mechanism'. The fossils we do have fit very nicely in the existing ToE. Likewise the fields of anatomy, biology, anthropology, and geology all support Darwin's theory.

There is less evidence for Darwin's theory.....

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nor do you have any way of knowing if the All-Powerful simply had a mechanism in the animals that allowed them to correspond to alterations in the environment.

Simply put, there is more evidence for God-creation than for Darwin's theory.....yet the latter is treated as fact when it clearly isn't.

You're simply not bright enough, nor strong enough, to connect those dots.

So you're saying that there is some miraculous mechanism in animals that God uses to enable new species to appear in response to alterations in the environment? I'm not too bright but it seems like you just connected the dots of God-creation and Darwin's theory.

Face it, the only 'evidence' you have for creationism is supposed 'holes' in the fossil record and the possibility, sans evidence, for some miraculous 'mechanism'. The fossils we do have fit very nicely in the existing ToE. Likewise the fields of anatomy, biology, anthropology, and geology all support Darwin's theory.

There is less evidence for Darwin's theory.....

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

 

[alang1216]

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

I have noticed it but I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does. Take Madagascar as an example. Evolution and geology says the primates there were separated from the African mainland before monkeys evolved. That is why there are no monkeys or apes on the island. If God was going around creating things couldn't he as easily created monkeys on Madagascar as on the mainland?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

I have noticed it but I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does. Take Madagascar as an example. Evolution and geology says the primates there were separated from the African mainland before monkeys evolved. That is why there are no monkeys or apes on the island. If God was going around creating things couldn't he as easily created monkeys on Madagascar as on the mainland?

" I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does."

Nor is this the first time you've been wrong.....far from it.


Part of the calculation in deciding which explanation to accept includes these two facts:

1. Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

2. British scientist Andrew Parker has written about the amazing coincidence of a three millennia-old text, the Bible, having given the exact order of events in creation that modern science posits.

See it here:

Of course, with your limited education, and no experience with books, this would be beyond your ken.

 

[alang1216]

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

I have noticed it but I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does. Take Madagascar as an example. Evolution and geology says the primates there were separated from the African mainland before monkeys evolved. That is why there are no monkeys or apes on the island. If God was going around creating things couldn't he as easily created monkeys on Madagascar as on the mainland?

" I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does."

Nor is this the first time you've been wrong.....far from it.


Part of the calculation in deciding which explanation to accept includes these two facts:

1. Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

2. British scientist Andrew Parker has written about the amazing coincidence of a three millennia-old text, the Bible, having given the exact order of events in creation that modern science posits.

See it here:
View attachment 333603

Of course, with your limited education, and no experience with books, this would be beyond your ken.

f example is useless. Leaving for the moment the question of God's creation, you cite science agreeing with the Bible as evidence for the Bible but also claim that science is flawed. You can't have it both ways.

Genesis 1:3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How would there be a day and night with no sun or earth? But that is not really the question I asked now, was it. Even if nothing in the Bible conflicts with science that doesn't mean the Bible is true, it only that it is not demonstrably false. Hardly the same thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

I have noticed it but I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does. Take Madagascar as an example. Evolution and geology says the primates there were separated from the African mainland before monkeys evolved. That is why there are no monkeys or apes on the island. If God was going around creating things couldn't he as easily created monkeys on Madagascar as on the mainland?

" I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does."

Nor is this the first time you've been wrong.....far from it.


Part of the calculation in deciding which explanation to accept includes these two facts:

1. Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

2. British scientist Andrew Parker has written about the amazing coincidence of a three millennia-old text, the Bible, having given the exact order of events in creation that modern science posits.

See it here:
View attachment 333603

Of course, with your limited education, and no experience with books, this would be beyond your ken.

f example is useless. Leaving for the moment the question of God's creation, you cite science agreeing with the Bible as evidence for the Bible but also claim that science is flawed. You can't have it both ways.

Genesis 1:3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How would there be a day and night with no sun or earth? But that is not really the question I asked now, was it. Even if nothing in the Bible conflicts with science that doesn't mean the Bible is true, it only that it is not demonstrably false. Hardly the same thing.

I suppose it is good, you demanding education.

We'll put aside for the moment that you are too lazy to get it on your own.....



3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun - D-brief


Throughout history, people have understood “Let there be light” to mean “God created light.” And that is an entirely legitimate translation—“Let there be” (yihee) can mean “Come into being.” But there is no verb here meaning “create,” “make,” or “form.” And that may strongly suggest another meaning. There are scientists who believe in the Bible who understand “Let there be light” to mean that God did not create or make light in this verse; He made light appear.

No light had yet appeared on earth because in earth’s earliest period, the earth’s atmosphere was opaque, either from clouds or cosmological dust and debris, or both. In the words of former MIT physicist and member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission Gerald Schroeder: “There was light, but no sources of light were visible from the earth due to the cloud cover over the still-warm earth. Warm earth = high vapor pressure = clouds.”

…with His words “let there be light,” the atmosphere began to clear, and the light of the sun (but not the sun itself) became visible from the surface of the earth—just as it is visible to us when the skies are overcast: we see the light, but not its source. Thus, …, the sun already exists (but is not seen until Day Four).




1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the production of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the clouds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???




Source of the above.....this is called a 'book'.....perhaps you've heard the term.