If You Have Learned Anything At All.....

[PoliticalChic]

sYou gave a laundry list of article titles. Pick one, post the article, and we'll talk about it.

No we won't.

The list was to prove how the Marxists have taken over a nominally scientific journal.

You failed to understand that, so there is nothing to talk about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you have followed me at all you know that isn't true. You tend to throw too much stuff at the wall with your posts. That said I do agree with most of your positions.

We will exchange views again, I hope.

But I look forward to posts not restricted in words, like a telegram.

Be well.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yeah.....feeling guilty, what I said.

Dumbass.

Selfish, indulgent, and self-indulgent are hardly 'guilty' thoughts. "Navel gazing" generally means contemplating esoteric subjects, not guilt-tripping.

 

[Woodznutz]

No we won't.

The list was to prove how the Marxists have taken over a nominally scientific journal.

You failed to understand that, so there is nothing to talk about.

I fully understand it, that's why it's of little importance to me. Some writings are so stupid that there's really nothing to say.

 

[mudwhistle]

Selfish, indulgent, and self-indulgent are hardly 'guilty' thoughts. "Navel gazing" generally means contemplating esoteric subjects, not guilt-tripping.

That's your opinion. But isn't what you're doing now a deflection?

You meant to insult her.....and now you're trying to derail the thread by arguing about unrelated definitions?

I've seen this sort of tactic from your kind for far too many years. Liberals who feel they're the enlightened ones.

Thinking they're smarter than us because they vote for Democrats.

Frankly, supporting Democrats today makes you the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.

 

[mudwhistle]

I fully understand it, that's why it's of little importance to me. Some writings are so stupid that there's really nothing to say.

Or you have nothing worthy to offer to refute it, either because it's above your head or because it's 100% accurate, or both.

You cannot argue against her post, so you instead choose insults and ridicule.

 

[Woodznutz]

That's your opinion. But isn't what you're doing now a deflection?

You meant to insult her.....and now you're trying to derail the thread by arguing about unrelated definitions?

I've seen this sort of tactic from your kind for far too many years. Liberals who feel they're the enlightened ones.

Thinking they're smarter than us because they vote for Democrats.

Frankly, supporting Democrats today makes you the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.

I'm a conservative who always votes Republican, Trump three times.

 

[Woodznutz]

Or you have nothing worthy to offer to refute it, either because it's above your head or because it's 100% accurate, or both.

You cannot argue against her post, so you instead choose insults and ridicule.

I think you misunderstand. I didn't mean that PoliticalChic was navel gazing, but that the authors of the articles whose titles she posted were. The titles indicate that they were trying to make sense out of nonsense (another meaning of navel gazing).

 

[Hollie]

No we won't.

The list was to prove how the Marxists have taken over a nominally scientific journal.

You failed to understand that, so there is nothing to talk about.

Absent your usual, phony, edited “quotes”, you’re literally unable to assemble words into coherent sentences.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Absent your usual, phony, edited “quotes”, you’re literally unable to assemble words into coherent sentences.

A note to the above two penultimate posters: proof of the success of my thread is that not a one of any of you atheists could provide examples of one species becoming another.

But I am generous to a fault: you can have another chance.

Is there proof that Darwin's Theory has been proven to explain the variety of life on the planet?




Take your time. Maybe your obfuscations can get us to 2000 responses.

You don't want to look even more foolish, do you?

 

[Hollie]

A note to the above two penultimate posters: proof of the success of my thread is that not a one of any of you atheists could provide examples of one species becoming another.

But I am generous to a fault: you can have another chance.

Is there proof that Darwin's Theory has been proven to explain the variety of life on the planet?




Take your time. Maybe your obfuscations can get us to 2000 responses.

You don't want to look even more foolish, do you?

As your limitations are demonstrated, it’s clear you can’t assemble words into coherent sentences,

You’re now reduced to spamming your thread with stuttering and mumbling.

 

[Woodznutz]

As your limitations are demonstrated, it’s clear you can’t assemble words into coherent sentences,

You’re now reduced to spamming your thread with stuttering and mumbling.

What she is posing makes perfect sense. Science has not explained how evolutionary changes are possible. They don't seem to be possible in the lab. All the general public gets are articles written about evolution, but no one wants to show their work. And, even those articles are littered with suppositions.

 

[Hollie]

What she is posing makes perfect sense. Science has not explained how evolutionary changes are possible. They don't seem to be possible in the lab. All the general public gets are articles written about evolution, but no one wants to show their work. And, even those articles are littered with suppositions.

The science of biology and the study of DNA clearly do explain how and why populations change over time. The published, peer reviewed studies are quite extensive.

Using a search term from your comment, you can start here. "Science explains how evolutionary changes are possible - Google Search

 

[Woodznutz]

The science of biology and the study of DNA clearly do explain how and why populations change over time. The published, peer reviewed studies are quite extensive.

Using a search term from your comment, you can start here. "Science explains how evolutionary changes are possible - Google Search

Those searches reveal more articles about evolutionary changes, not how or why those changes happened.

 

[Hollie]

Those searches reveal more articles about evolution, not how the needed changes happen.

The link supplies the descriptions of forces which facilitate change.
Adaptation, natural selection, genetic drift. etc., are all forces acting on populations.

Biological evolution defines a change in the genetic characteristics of populations over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. It shpuld be noted that the greatest objection to Darwin’s theory comes from christian fundamentalism. Changes in populations by purely natural mechanisms tends to diminish the efficacy of various gods and their claimed handiwork.

 

[scruffy]

What she is posing makes perfect sense. Science has not explained how evolutionary changes are possible.

Yes, it has.

I showed you the pictures and detailed the genetics for you.

They don't seem to be possible in the lab.

Yes, they are. In the lab or in the wild, doesn't matter.

All the general public gets are articles written about evolution, but no one wants to show their work. And, even those articles are littered with suppositions.

Just look at the pictures. They're real. No suppositions involved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those searches reveal more articles about evolutionary changes, not how or why those changes happened.

This about the Royal Society's disagreement with the Darwin cult:

"Indeed, by the end of Day 3 of the meeting, it seemed clear to many of our scientists, and others in attendance with whom they talked, that the puzzle of life’s novelties remained unsolved — if, indeed, it had been addressed at all.

As a prominent German paleontologist in the crowd concluded, “All elements of the Extended Synthesis [as discussed at the conference] fail to offer adequate explanations for the crucial explanatory deficits of the Modern Synthesis (aka neo-Darwinism) that were explicitly highlighted in the first talk of the meeting by Gerd Müller.”

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

Seems that the propaganda is falling apart for those who actually look into it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, it has.

I showed you the pictures and detailed the genetics for you.



Yes, they are. In the lab or in the wild, doesn't matter.



Just look at the pictures. They're real. No suppositions involved.

....you can redeem yourself by providing evidence of one species 'evolving' into another....


....and refuting this:

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Charles Darwin's primary contribution was attempting to explain the variety of life on Earth through his theory of evolution by natural selection, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptation to different environments, resulting in the vast diversity of species we see today.




But you can't do either, can you.

 

[scruffy]

....you can redeem yourself by providing evidence of one species 'evolving' into another....


....and refuting this:

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Charles Darwin's primary contribution was attempting to explain the variety of life on Earth through his theory of evolution by natural selection, proposing that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and diversified over time through adaptation to different environments, resulting in the vast diversity of species we see today.




But you can't do either, can you.

I already brought the receipts.

You're free to refute them if you wish.

 

[Hollie]

No we won't.

The list was to prove how the Marxists have taken over a nominally scientific journal.

You failed to understand that, so there is nothing to talk about.

Another of your embarrassing retrrats.