Science In Need Of Context

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

The experiment was based on Darwin's letter kiddy. You really have no clue do you

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

As the saying goes, Darwin was about 'survival of the fittest,' not 'arrival of the fittest.'

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You are functionally brain dead

 

[Hollie]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

As the saying goes, Darwin was about 'survival of the fittest,' not 'arrival of the fittest.'

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You are functionally brain dead

So your claim is that Darwin was a philosopher rather than a scientist?


Or....can you produce any experiments along those lines?

 

[alang1216]

7. Context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. Google.

When one understands the inconsistencies in the arguments of Darwin’s supporters, Gould, for example, one needs the context that explains why same are accepted.

Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.

Evolutionary biologist and supporter of the theory, Stephen Gould admits same: "Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia




8. Yet, inconsistency notwithstanding, Gould’s support of Darwinism is advanced.

Here’s why:

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



And to make certain that Marxism is advanced and any religious view is extirpated, you were taught Darwinian Evolution in government school.

How many millions of years are in a geological 'suddenly'?

 

[Hollie]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

I’m glad you finally admitted to perpetrating a fraud.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

As the saying goes, Darwin was about 'survival of the fittest,' not 'arrival of the fittest.'

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You are functionally brain dead

So your claim is that Darwin was a philosopher rather than a scientist?


Or....can you produce any experiments along those lines?

I did not make any claim kid.

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Furthermore the babble about the pond is exactly the science that you are refuting, so you should understand this. However you are cluelessly in need of meds

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

I’m glad you finally admitted to perpetrating a fraud.

I merely posted what Darwin said Gilligan. And you argued senselessly that Darwin never wrote what he did. You are clearly rolling in your own denial

It's ok, everyone ends up where you are now

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

As the saying goes, Darwin was about 'survival of the fittest,' not 'arrival of the fittest.'

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You are functionally brain dead

So your claim is that Darwin was a philosopher rather than a scientist?


Or....can you produce any experiments along those lines?

I did not make any claim kid.

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Furthermore the babble about the pond is exactly the science that you are refuting, so you should understand this. However you are cluelessly in need of meds

A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....

"Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.


More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
Maybe life is a miracle.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

As the saying goes, Darwin was about 'survival of the fittest,' not 'arrival of the fittest.'

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You are functionally brain dead

So your claim is that Darwin was a philosopher rather than a scientist?


Or....can you produce any experiments along those lines?

I did not make any claim kid.

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Furthermore the babble about the pond is exactly the science that you are refuting, so you should understand this. However you are cluelessly in need of meds

A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....

"Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.


More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
Maybe life is a miracle.

Actually the pond referred to Darwin as I said, and you with all your supposed knowledge of Darwin had no clue about what the pond referred too. All this after 20 years of screaming about Darwin

 

[Hollie]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

I’m glad you finally admitted to perpetrating a fraud.

I merely posted what Darwin said Gilligan. And you argued senselessly that Darwin never wrote what he did. You are clearly rolling in your own denial

It's ok, everyone ends up where you are now

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You wrote you were done. This is your second fraud. Your first fraud was fraudulently representing Darwin said life began in a warm pond. That is a fraud.

Are you done making fraudulent claims?

 

[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.

Rather pointless as biological evolution is a fact with or without Darwin.

So, since biological evolution is "a fact" show me the progression of the Tabby cat from amino acid. Better yet, what is the next stage of developement for the Taddy cat? This should be very simple to do given the knowledge that biological evolution is "a fact".

You hold a number of false impressions about biological evolution. It is a fact that biological organisms evolve over time subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures. The progression of simple to more complex life forms is undeniable except to certain religious types. The evidence is overwhelming in spite of the denials from religionists.

On the other hand, we have no evidence, let alone “facts” for a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, etc.,

Wher is the evidence for Adam & Eve and a magical garden?

What you term "simple" is actually quite complex. While who we are changes from generation to generation, what we are remains the same. Every living thing is unique but every living thing remains within its kind.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

I’m glad you finally admitted to perpetrating a fraud.

I merely posted what Darwin said Gilligan. And you argued senselessly that Darwin never wrote what he did. You are clearly rolling in your own denial

It's ok, everyone ends up where you are now

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You wrote you were done. This is your second fraud. Your first fraud was fraudulently representing Darwin said life began in a warm pond. That is a fraud.

Are you done making fraudulent claims?

Look little grasshopper, I quoted Darwin letters that you did not learn in schooly.

The fraud is you for claiming that you knew what Darwin wrote when you never read anything on the subject.

It's ok I know that you are embarrassed, you will accept it soon enough

 

[Hollie]

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.

Rather pointless as biological evolution is a fact with or without Darwin.

So, since biological evolution is "a fact" show me the progression of the Tabby cat from amino acid. Better yet, what is the next stage of developement for the Taddy cat? This should be very simple to do given the knowledge that biological evolution is "a fact".

You hold a number of false impressions about biological evolution. It is a fact that biological organisms evolve over time subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures. The progression of simple to more complex life forms is undeniable except to certain religious types. The evidence is overwhelming in spite of the denials from religionists.

On the other hand, we have no evidence, let alone “facts” for a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, etc.,

Wher is the evidence for Adam & Eve and a magical garden?

What you term "simple" is actually quite complex. While who we are changes from generation to generation, what we are remains the same. Every living thing is unique but every living thing remains within its kind.

What you term “gods” is actually quite simple. A simple distillation of many gods to the more easily managed three.

Creationists have never been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Does the modern day moose closely resemble the ones which Noah put on the magical Ark? How do you account for the diversity of cat "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider, the Moose “kind” could be placed in the 4-legged animal kind, the Moose kind, the mammal kind, the horned animal kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter how you try an manipulate terms and definitions or what a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism want.

So, we can move on to observed instances of speciation if you like. Or, you can provide some testable evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago, or present evidence of Arks, Gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old, etc., etc.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

I’m glad you finally admitted to perpetrating a fraud.

I merely posted what Darwin said Gilligan. And you argued senselessly that Darwin never wrote what he did. You are clearly rolling in your own denial

It's ok, everyone ends up where you are now

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You wrote you were done. This is your second fraud. Your first fraud was fraudulently representing Darwin said life began in a warm pond. That is a fraud.

Are you done making fraudulent claims?

Look little grasshopper, I quoted Darwin letters that you did not learn in schooly.

The fraud is you for claiming that you knew what Darwin wrote when you never read anything on the subject.

It's ok I know that you are embarrassed, you will accept it soon enough

Nothing you “quoted” represents what you claim.

That’s fraud.

 

[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.

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.

Rather pointless as biological evolution is a fact with or without Darwin.

So, since biological evolution is "a fact" show me the progression of the Tabby cat from amino acid. Better yet, what is the next stage of developement for the Taddy cat? This should be very simple to do given the knowledge that biological evolution is "a fact".

You hold a number of false impressions about biological evolution. It is a fact that biological organisms evolve over time subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures. The progression of simple to more complex life forms is undeniable except to certain religious types. The evidence is overwhelming in spite of the denials from religionists.

On the other hand, we have no evidence, let alone “facts” for a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, etc.,

Wher is the evidence for Adam & Eve and a magical garden?

What you term "simple" is actually quite complex. While who we are changes from generation to generation, what we are remains the same. Every living thing is unique but every living thing remains within its kind.

What you term “gods” is actually quite simple. A simple distillation of many gods to the more easily managed three.

Creationists have never been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Does the modern day moose closely resemble the ones which Noah put on the magical Ark? How do you account for the diversity of cat "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider, the Moose “kind” could be placed in the 4-legged animal kind, the Moose kind, the mammal kind, the horned animal kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter how you try an manipulate terms and definitions or what a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism want.

So, we can move on to observed instances of speciation if you like. Or, you can provide some testable evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago, or present evidence of Arks, Gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old, etc., etc.

God will shortly be proven when humanity begins engineering crops for Mars, just as was done here once.

So Dolly just have faith in real science

 

[Dusty]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Darwin never claimed life began in a pond. Try paying attention.

Yes Darwin did claim that life began in a pond kid, your ignorance is shining brightly

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes​

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]”

You should learn to read. Darwin never stated life began In a pond as you fraudulently claim.

Don’t be a fraud.

LOL you are the doofus that did not even know what the pond referred too earlier. So again to repeat, those who believe in Darwinism all must accept that life created itself in a warm little brainless pond. You know like you do Sargent Agarn

CIAO

130

I’m glad you finally admitted to perpetrating a fraud.

I merely posted what Darwin said Gilligan. And you argued senselessly that Darwin never wrote what he did. You are clearly rolling in your own denial

It's ok, everyone ends up where you are now

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You wrote you were done. This is your second fraud. Your first fraud was fraudulently representing Darwin said life began in a warm pond. That is a fraud.

Are you done making fraudulent claims?

Look little grasshopper, I quoted Darwin letters that you did not learn in schooly.

The fraud is you for claiming that you knew what Darwin wrote when you never read anything on the subject.

It's ok I know that you are embarrassed, you will accept it soon enough

Nothing you “quoted” represents what you claim.

That’s fraud.

Says the kid who never even heard of Darwins warm little pond letter to Hooker.

The turds handwriting was scribble like his grooming, but what is to be expected from a doof who believed that life created itself in a pond

 

[alang1216]

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?

Darwin is the only thing living in chic's mind

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


You don't know, do you?

Darwin's greatest accomplishment is turning people like you into paranoid schizzos, constantly babbling for decades the same krap.

You do know that there is nothing to win here right?

What is it that Darwin accomplished that caused your infatuation?


I won by proving that your sort, the indoctrinated, doesn't have a clue.

What did you win? I mean other than another bottle of pills from one of your doctors

I proved that you know nothing about Darwin, but have been taught to bow the neck and bend the knee in obedience to your masters.

OK Hollie, you proved something. Submit the proof for peer review.

Just remember to take all your pills as directed

Wrong poster, sweetie.

You both need the same meds.

A rather embarrassing retreat on your part.

Don’t bring a knife bible to a gun science fight.

First of all Hollie there is no "we" that you referred too, because most of humanity believes in one God or another. Now your argument is actually that we know that life created itself in Darwins pond because life is here.

Hollie, please pay attention to the real news, because aliens are here in some form, looping around F-18's, and they did not come from Darwins pond. How is this relevant? because there is no way to say that they were not here first, and or that we are not actually them, or that they did not engineer life for the Earth as humanity will soon be doing on Mars.

Next

You’re simply stuttering and mumbling about “Darwin’s pond” when there is no such thing.

Your alien conspiracy theory is fascinating. Do you spend a great deal of time reading supermarket tabloids?

Darwin referenced a pond, so you are quite wrong. In fact your ignorance pretty much demonstrates well, your ignorance.

That said you clearly need a lesson in Darwinism

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL now who is the stupid one Dolly

You cut and pasted what I provided for you earlier.

That’s odd because Darwin never suggested life emerged from a pond as you tried to suggest.

Name-calling won’t help you.

So, in connection with your space alien conspiracy theory, have you ever been abducted and maybe, you know, probed or anything?

Again Dolly Darwin believed that life was conceived in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

LOL you had no clue as to what Darwin actually believed, and when confronted with what Darwin said all you can claim is that he never said it.

He did say it and believed that life concieved itself in a pond.

So have you concieved anything yet Dolly? other than ignorance I mean

Not Darwin.


Harold Urey.


Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?

Darwin wrote about the pond to Hooker. All this time and you still have no clue

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "


~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

I'm here to help:
View attachment 492331
View attachment 492333
View attachment 492330
View attachment 492332
View attachment 492328
View attachment 492329
View all


The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Miller–Urey_experiment

As the saying goes, Darwin was about 'survival of the fittest,' not 'arrival of the fittest.'

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

You are functionally brain dead

So your claim is that Darwin was a philosopher rather than a scientist?


Or....can you produce any experiments along those lines?

I did not make any claim kid.

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

www.age-of-the-sage.org

Furthermore the babble about the pond is exactly the science that you are refuting, so you should understand this. However you are cluelessly in need of meds

A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....

"Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.


More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
Maybe life is a miracle.

Maybe they just need to run a bit longer, say 10-20 million years?