Science In Need Of Context

[PoliticalChic]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

 

[Dusty]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

 

[Dusty]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

"I haven't read your questions."

Stop lying.


Why your abject, palpable fear of confronting facts that run contrary to what you have been told?


My only 'compulsion' is to provide the truth.

 

[Dusty]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

"I haven't read your questions."

Stop lying.


Why your abject, palpable fear of confronting facts that run contrary to what you have been told?


My only 'compulsion' is to provide the truth.

So you know the truth and you provide it for an eager world that can not wait to hear your every word

Tell us more, just lie back on the couch first

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

"I haven't read your questions."

Stop lying.


Why your abject, palpable fear of confronting facts that run contrary to what you have been told?


My only 'compulsion' is to provide the truth.

So you know the truth and you provide it for an eager world that can not wait to hear your every word

Tell us more, just lie back on the couch first

And the proof?

Here you are again.

 

[DrLove]

I don’t read your posts unless they’re at least 10,000 words long.
This one fell a bit short

 

[Dusty]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

"I haven't read your questions."

Stop lying.


Why your abject, palpable fear of confronting facts that run contrary to what you have been told?


My only 'compulsion' is to provide the truth.

So you know the truth and you provide it for an eager world that can not wait to hear your every word

Tell us more, just lie back on the couch first

And the proof?

Here you are again.

When you are done arguing, I mean when you are too old and sick to continue here as you have now continued for decades. So when you are done arguing, what will you have changed?

A big nothing, that's what.

There is nothing to win or proof to be had here, you are just another bird chirping in the flock

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don’t read your posts unless they’re at least 10,000 words long.
This one fell a bit short

Of course you do.


You just can't find any way to disprove them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

"I haven't read your questions."

Stop lying.


Why your abject, palpable fear of confronting facts that run contrary to what you have been told?


My only 'compulsion' is to provide the truth.

So you know the truth and you provide it for an eager world that can not wait to hear your every word

Tell us more, just lie back on the couch first

And the proof?

Here you are again.

When you are done arguing, I mean when you are too old and sick to continue here as you have now continued for decades. So when you are done arguing, what will you have changed?

A big nothing, that's what.

There is nothing to win or proof to be had here, you are just another bird chirping in the flock

And you'll be back.

 

[Dusty]

I don’t read your posts unless they’re at least 10,000 words long.
This one fell a bit short

Of course you do.


You just can't find any way to disprove them.

Again if you were not so seriously mentally challenged you could understand the concept that no one cares about you enough to even want to disprove you.

 

[Dusty]

I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Without Darwin, atheism, secularism...and Marxism... fall apart.


That's the context.

Can you please explain this to a psychiatrist, who can process the info and hopefully allow you to get on with your life

Most interesting is how upset your sort gets when your indoctrination is questioned.


Nor, it appears, are you equipped to answer questions about what upset you.


Another chance?

Let's see what it is about the OP that has gotten under your scale.



1. Should we believe all who are called scientists?

2. Was Stephen Jay Gould a famous popularizer and supporter of Darwinian Evolution?

3. Has Darwin's theory been proven?

4. Is that theory taught in government school as a fact? Do you accept it as such?

5. Is there any importance to Gould and other supporter of Darwinism being a Marxist?

6. Do you have any objection to Marxism?

7. Is it an accident that no mention of Gould's political views occurs?

8. You appear incensed. What, actually, produced your ire when reading the OP?

You are not questioning any of my beliefs, because you do not know my beliefs. What you are doing is repeatedly day after day for decades crusading against Darwin on a message board that perhaps 20 people might read. There is nothing here for you to either win or achieve, no one has to answer your questions and whether those questions are answered or not answered the lack of meaning is the same.

Why are you afraid to answer those questions?


Not very sure of your own views, are you?


Government school grad?

I haven't read your questions. I have glanced at them and they are the same nonsense from you on a different day. I do not take you serious because you have obsessive compulsive disorder revolving around Darwin. I also can not answer any questions on Gould because I have no idea who that is, or was. See not everyone shares your thoughts. Actually overall I probable agree with you more than disagree, but I do not share your compulsions

"I haven't read your questions."

Stop lying.


Why your abject, palpable fear of confronting facts that run contrary to what you have been told?


My only 'compulsion' is to provide the truth.

So you know the truth and you provide it for an eager world that can not wait to hear your every word

Tell us more, just lie back on the couch first

And the proof?

Here you are again.

When you are done arguing, I mean when you are too old and sick to continue here as you have now continued for decades. So when you are done arguing, what will you have changed?

A big nothing, that's what.

There is nothing to win or proof to be had here, you are just another bird chirping in the flock

And you'll be back.

Indeed, as humor is a pleasurable emotion and you kid are hysterical

 

[PoliticalChic]

“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.)


And this thread proves the explanation for the reason teaches Darwinism as though it had been proven.

That's context.

 

[Dusty]

“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.)


And this thread proves the explanation for the reason teaches Darwinism as though it had been proven.

That's context.

There you go again expressing your Darwin compulsion.

Darwin rules your world

 

[DrLove]

I don’t read your posts unless they’re at least 10,000 words long.
This one fell a bit short

Of course you do.


You just can't find any way to disprove them.

Nothing personal, but I’ve found your anti science kookery to be a waste of time

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don’t read your posts unless they’re at least 10,000 words long.
This one fell a bit short

Of course you do.


You just can't find any way to disprove them.

Nothing personal, but I’ve found your anti science kookery to be a waste of time

Anti-science????

You have the wrong party.

 

[LittleNipper]

1.In light of the Wuhan/Mask/Lockdown Hoax being exposed, this appears to be an opportune time to remind all of one simple rule: Experts, 'scientists,' bureaucrats ...don't make the mistake of assigning a higher level of integrity and honesty to any of them, than anyone else. Not politicians, bureaucrats, economists, pastors....whatever. ..you should know that they have been forced to embrace the collective, oppose the separation of powers, and or checks and balances, and the result is a tyranny of the elites .
You should have learned from the finest President in a hundred years:
Trust, but verify.


View attachment 491570



2. I admit to a certain....frisson...in being barraged by Darwin-believers who claim science as their cause, but fail to see that Darwinism fails as science. It remains unproven, even its popularizers pretend it isn't what it, and any criticism is met with emotion rather than discussion....hardly a scientific method.

Just like that mask thing.



3. Today is the anniversary of sorts of the most famous popularizer of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, the day he passed on.

Stephen Jay Gould, (born September 10, 1941, New York, New York, U.S.—died May 20, 2002, New York), American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science writer.
…Gould became widely known as a writer, polemicist, and popularizer of evolutionary theory.
Britannica.com

No where in the article is the most important aspect of Gould’s views mentioned: Marxism.
If you are a government school grad, you were taught to ignore it, too.




3. Marxism is the context. Suddenly, it become clear why certain individuals push Darwin’s Theory and abjure any religious view.

" The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.
... Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School, which was dedicated to using "Marx's uniquely valuable contributions…to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society."
Gasper, Phil, ‘A scientist of the people’, Socialist Worker Online, 7 June 2002, p8



4. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’



5. Stephen Jay Gould ultimately may not have been an atheist or a Marxist, but nearly his whole life argues in favor of both positions.

One an only conjecture as to why mention of his Marxist views never seem to get mentioned.

Could it be ‘context’?

This thread does not belong in the science section. Conspiracy Theory or Rubber R

“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.)


And this thread proves the explanation for the reason teaches Darwinism as though it had been proven.

That's context.

There you go again expressing your Darwin compulsion.

Darwin rules your world

Darwin is dead ------ do you really think he cares at this point?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Because the source is a joke. That source is you.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don’t read your posts unless they’re at least 10,000 words long.
This one fell a bit short

Of course you do.


You just can't find any way to disprove them.

Again if you were not so seriously mentally challenged you could understand the concept that no one cares about you enough to even want to disprove you.

1.In light of the Wuhan/Mask/Lockdown Hoax being exposed, this appears to be an opportune time to remind all of one simple rule: Experts, 'scientists,' bureaucrats ...don't make the mistake of assigning a higher level of integrity and honesty to any of them, than anyone else. Not politicians, bureaucrats, economists, pastors....whatever. ..you should know that they have been forced to embrace the collective, oppose the separation of powers, and or checks and balances, and the result is a tyranny of the elites .
You should have learned from the finest President in a hundred years:
Trust, but verify.


View attachment 491570



2. I admit to a certain....frisson...in being barraged by Darwin-believers who claim science as their cause, but fail to see that Darwinism fails as science. It remains unproven, even its popularizers pretend it isn't what it, and any criticism is met with emotion rather than discussion....hardly a scientific method.

Just like that mask thing.



3. Today is the anniversary of sorts of the most famous popularizer of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, the day he passed on.

Stephen Jay Gould, (born September 10, 1941, New York, New York, U.S.—died May 20, 2002, New York), American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science writer.
…Gould became widely known as a writer, polemicist, and popularizer of evolutionary theory.
Britannica.com

No where in the article is the most important aspect of Gould’s views mentioned: Marxism.
If you are a government school grad, you were taught to ignore it, too.




3. Marxism is the context. Suddenly, it become clear why certain individuals push Darwin’s Theory and abjure any religious view.

" The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.
... Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School, which was dedicated to using "Marx's uniquely valuable contributions…to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society."
Gasper, Phil, ‘A scientist of the people’, Socialist Worker Online, 7 June 2002, p8



4. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’



5. Stephen Jay Gould ultimately may not have been an atheist or a Marxist, but nearly his whole life argues in favor of both positions.

One an only conjecture as to why mention of his Marxist views never seem to get mentioned.

Could it be ‘context’?

Darwin owns your brain

Very sad

So there was nothing in the post that you could dispute?


And that's as far as what passes for thinking from your sort, allows?


Very sad.

I know that your delusional mind tells you that people read your nonsense. They and I do not.

PS The last 13 years that you have spent here have achieved nothing, you make the same lame arguments now as you did then

Of course you read,...and are discomforted, by these posts.

I suggest you do not read the next one, as it will put you in your place, and be even more discomforting when you realize you have no way to dispute same.

Again Darwin rules your tormented existence, he always will, and when you are dead he will still be Darwin when no one remembers your name

When the asteroid hits the earth, it will be as if Darwin never existed.