Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[PoliticalChic]

Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews, 11:1

Ironic considering that PoliticalSpice refuses to comprehend proof that can be seen with the naked eye.

Seen??

Naked eye????


You dunce...." we never see the very process we profess to study"....Stephen Gould




It seems that in attempting to 'get even' with me for numerous spankings....you don't recognize how truly ignorant you reveal your self to be.

The most famous popularizer of evolutionary theory, Stephen Gould, has, on numerous occasions revealed exactly what I have claimed

1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

and

'Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a, 86[5]:14).


And this:

2. "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




I need better opponents......


...and you can go back to slapping soap bubbles out of the air.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews, 11:1

Ironic considering that PoliticalSpice refuses to comprehend proof that can be seen with the naked eye.

Seen??

Naked eye????


You dunce...." we never see the very process we profess to study"....Stephen Gould




It seems that in attempting to 'get even' with me for numerous spankings....you don't recognize how truly ignorant you reveal your self to be.

The most famous popularizer of evolutionary theory, Stephen Gould, has, on numerous occasions revealed exactly what I have claimed

1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

and

'Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a, 86[5]:14).


And this:

2. "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




I need better opponents......


...and you can go back to slapping soap bubbles out of the air.

PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ironic considering that PoliticalSpice refuses to comprehend proof that can be seen with the naked eye.

Seen??

Naked eye????


You dunce...." we never see the very process we profess to study"....Stephen Gould




It seems that in attempting to 'get even' with me for numerous spankings....you don't recognize how truly ignorant you reveal your self to be.

The most famous popularizer of evolutionary theory, Stephen Gould, has, on numerous occasions revealed exactly what I have claimed

1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

and

'Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a, 86[5]:14).


And this:

2. "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




I need better opponents......


...and you can go back to slapping soap bubbles out of the air.

PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?



This may save you from padding your resume of ignorance:

“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.)

 

[Derideo_Te]

Seen??

Naked eye????


You dunce...." we never see the very process we profess to study"....Stephen Gould




It seems that in attempting to 'get even' with me for numerous spankings....you don't recognize how truly ignorant you reveal your self to be.

The most famous popularizer of evolutionary theory, Stephen Gould, has, on numerous occasions revealed exactly what I have claimed

1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

and

'Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a, 86[5]:14).


And this:

2. "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




I need better opponents......


...and you can go back to slapping soap bubbles out of the air.

PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?



This may save you from padding your resume of ignorance:

“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.)

Now that I have your your brief attention span let me remind you that soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record. However DNA does preserve features of prior species. Darwin was right that the gaps would be filled in but since DNA was completely unknown during his lifetime he could not have guessed that it would be via a different scientific discipline.

Your religious beliefs must be so insecure since you persist in this futile attack on the proven science of evolution. Does it keep you awake at night too?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?



This may save you from padding your resume of ignorance:

“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.)

Now that I have your your brief attention span let me remind you that soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record. However DNA does preserve features of prior species. Darwin was right that the gaps would be filled in but since DNA was completely unknown during his lifetime he could not have guessed that it would be via a different scientific discipline.

Your religious beliefs must be so insecure since you persist in this futile attack on the proven science of evolution. Does it keep you awake at night too?

".... soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."

The real impossibility is finding evidence of soft tissue between your ears.

Did you know that there are fossils of leaves?
"The oldest fossils of land plants visible with the naked eye come from Ireland and date from the Middle Silurian (425 million years)."
The evolution of ferns

" ....therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."
Moron.



Can you possibly be so stupid that you deny the fossil record with the Niles Eldridge quote right in front of you.


Yep....you can.



Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.... curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology,...
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dunce.

 

[jasonnfree]

Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."

Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews, 11:1

So the bible says it and you say that settles it. Faith is confidence in what you hope for and assurance about what you do not see. Feel free to believe this and I'll continue to believe you to be an ignorant and gullible person as you've just proved.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?



This may save you from padding your resume of ignorance:

“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.)

Now that I have your your brief attention span let me remind you that soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record. However DNA does preserve features of prior species. Darwin was right that the gaps would be filled in but since DNA was completely unknown during his lifetime he could not have guessed that it would be via a different scientific discipline.

Your religious beliefs must be so insecure since you persist in this futile attack on the proven science of evolution. Does it keep you awake at night too?

".... soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."

The real impossibility is finding evidence of soft tissue between your ears.

Did you know that there are fossils of leaves?
"The oldest fossils of land plants visible with the naked eye come from Ireland and date from the Middle Silurian (425 million years)."
The evolution of ferns

" ....therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."
Moron.



Can you possibly be so stupid that you deny the fossil record with the Niles Eldridge quote right in front of you.


Yep....you can.



Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.... curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology,...
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dunce.

Once again PoliticalSpice does a mindless google search without any actual understanding of what she is looking for. Taphonomy is the study of fossilization and the first thing you learn is that bacteria is the primary cause of soft tissue decay. Only in anoxic environments is it possible to prevent bacteria from breaking down soft tissue. These are extremely rare environments. Furthermore most of these have only been capable of preserving very small samples mostly on the microbial level.

Your quest to outwit evolution and prove that your pagan belief in a creator is going nowhere because science has nothing to prove but you do. Furthermore science is the ongoing quest for knowledge and you will never be able to keep up since your beliefs were fossilized 2000 years ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now that I have your your brief attention span let me remind you that soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record. However DNA does preserve features of prior species. Darwin was right that the gaps would be filled in but since DNA was completely unknown during his lifetime he could not have guessed that it would be via a different scientific discipline.

Your religious beliefs must be so insecure since you persist in this futile attack on the proven science of evolution. Does it keep you awake at night too?

".... soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."

The real impossibility is finding evidence of soft tissue between your ears.

Did you know that there are fossils of leaves?
"The oldest fossils of land plants visible with the naked eye come from Ireland and date from the Middle Silurian (425 million years)."
The evolution of ferns

" ....therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."
Moron.



Can you possibly be so stupid that you deny the fossil record with the Niles Eldridge quote right in front of you.


Yep....you can.



Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.... curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology,...
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dunce.

Once again PoliticalSpice does a mindless google search without any actual understanding of what she is looking for. Taphonomy is the study of fossilization and the first thing you learn is that bacteria is the primary cause of soft tissue decay. Only in anoxic environments is it possible to prevent bacteria from breaking down soft tissue. These are extremely rare environments. Furthermore most of these have only been capable of preserving very small samples mostly on the microbial level.

Your quest to outwit evolution and prove that your pagan belief in a creator is going nowhere because science has nothing to prove but you do. Furthermore science is the ongoing quest for knowledge and you will never be able to keep up since your beliefs were fossilized 2000 years ago.

There are tons of things about which you are ignorant....and what a fossil is, and how fossilization occurs, is just one more of them.



There is only one hope for you...

....read everything I post, and believe same totally and without hesitation.

Begin immediately.

 

[Derideo_Te]

".... soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."

The real impossibility is finding evidence of soft tissue between your ears.

Did you know that there are fossils of leaves?
"The oldest fossils of land plants visible with the naked eye come from Ireland and date from the Middle Silurian (425 million years)."
The evolution of ferns

" ....therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."
Moron.



Can you possibly be so stupid that you deny the fossil record with the Niles Eldridge quote right in front of you.


Yep....you can.



Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.... curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology,...
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dunce.

Once again PoliticalSpice does a mindless google search without any actual understanding of what she is looking for. Taphonomy is the study of fossilization and the first thing you learn is that bacteria is the primary cause of soft tissue decay. Only in anoxic environments is it possible to prevent bacteria from breaking down soft tissue. These are extremely rare environments. Furthermore most of these have only been capable of preserving very small samples mostly on the microbial level.

Your quest to outwit evolution and prove that your pagan belief in a creator is going nowhere because science has nothing to prove but you do. Furthermore science is the ongoing quest for knowledge and you will never be able to keep up since your beliefs were fossilized 2000 years ago.

There are tons of things about which you are ignorant....and what a fossil is, and how fossilization occurs, is just one more of them.



There is only one hope for you...

....read everything I post, and believe same totally and without hesitation.

Begin immediately.

Since it is readily apparent that is how you approach your own religious beliefs there is no reason whatsoever for me to make the same mistake that you are making, PoliticalSpice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again PoliticalSpice does a mindless google search without any actual understanding of what she is looking for. Taphonomy is the study of fossilization and the first thing you learn is that bacteria is the primary cause of soft tissue decay. Only in anoxic environments is it possible to prevent bacteria from breaking down soft tissue. These are extremely rare environments. Furthermore most of these have only been capable of preserving very small samples mostly on the microbial level.

Your quest to outwit evolution and prove that your pagan belief in a creator is going nowhere because science has nothing to prove but you do. Furthermore science is the ongoing quest for knowledge and you will never be able to keep up since your beliefs were fossilized 2000 years ago.

There are tons of things about which you are ignorant....and what a fossil is, and how fossilization occurs, is just one more of them.



There is only one hope for you...

....read everything I post, and believe same totally and without hesitation.

Begin immediately.

Since it is readily apparent that is how you approach your own religious beliefs there is no reason whatsoever for me to make the same mistake that you are making, PoliticalSpice.

Your loss.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There are tons of things about which you are ignorant....and what a fossil is, and how fossilization occurs, is just one more of them.



There is only one hope for you...

....read everything I post, and believe same totally and without hesitation.

Begin immediately.

Since it is readily apparent that is how you approach your own religious beliefs there is no reason whatsoever for me to make the same mistake that you are making, PoliticalSpice.

Your loss.

Ironic!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looks like more REPUBLICAN ANTI-Science.

Evolution is a fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks like more REPUBLICAN ANTI-Science.

Evolution is a fact.

Darwinism isn't.....so what is the explanation for evolution?

 

[Old Rocks]

The physical laws of this universe.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Looks like more REPUBLICAN ANTI-Science.

Evolution is a fact.

Darwinism isn't.....so what is the explanation for evolution?

What "explanation" are you looking for, PoliticalSpice?

There isn't an "explanation" in your religious texts for nuclear power, heavier than air flight, geology, economics, healthcare, quantum physics, etc, etc so why must there be one for evolution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The physical laws of this universe.

"The physical laws of this universe."

Rocks...you're showing a huge amount of ignorance about current theories in science.

Again.



So....which universe would that be?

Scientists today have posited the 'multiverse'...

"…some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720


Newton had claimed that physical laws of motion were the same everywhere in the universe. Contemporary physicists have postulated a ‘multiverse’ in which we can find every permutation of the physical laws we find here on earth. The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine





What's really amusing is how you keep saying that I don't know about science.....yet, I'm constantly teaching you about it.


Perhaps you should begin to recognize how truly ignorant you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."

Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews, 11:1

Evolution is currently the best explanation.

The Creationists' 'theory' of life appearing, all fully formed, all species their own beginning and end, all at the direction of a supernatural being, no longer merits the label of being an explanation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seen??

Naked eye????


You dunce...." we never see the very process we profess to study"....Stephen Gould




It seems that in attempting to 'get even' with me for numerous spankings....you don't recognize how truly ignorant you reveal your self to be.

The most famous popularizer of evolutionary theory, Stephen Gould, has, on numerous occasions revealed exactly what I have claimed

1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

and

'Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a, 86[5]:14).


And this:

2. "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




I need better opponents......


...and you can go back to slapping soap bubbles out of the air.

PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?

The evolution of the horse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The futility of trying to argue science with religious people is that they will insist on framing the argument as follows:

1. anything that you assert to be true must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and then further beyond all unreasonable doubt, or it remains false if the religious people deem it so.

2. anything the religious people claim to be true cannot be disproven unless all the criteria of 1 above have been met in the attempted disproving.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?

The evolution of the horse.

Bet your reputation on that?


Oh...wait....you have no reputation.