The Biology Term For History

[esalla]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

A better question is why did you waste your time reading it in the first place

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

 

[Hollie]

6. Every ‘authority’ such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who makes this claim, that there are lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt “all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor,” is lying. They know better.

The two such lines most referred to are biochemistry (mutation), and the fossil record. Item #5 above shows the fallacy of relying on mutations to support Darwinism.



How about the fossil record? This is where we note the title of this thread: the fossil record is history, largely of organism that no longer exist.

Here’s how the fossil record is of value: if it attests to Darwin’s view and prediction, that simple organism would be at the lowest levels of rock formations, and progressively more complex as we reach the top levels….neared the present….then Darwin was correct.



But….it shows the very opposite: time and again, deposits are filled with advanced organism often before…..BEFORE…..the simplest.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world." Extrait de:



Now, why are so many convinced by the Left to accept a proven-false thesis?????

You dumped the above fraud “quote” into the other nonsense thread you opened.

My, but you are a rather desperate fundie.


Cutting and pasting the same fraud.

There is no valid link. This is a cheap creationist fraud that appears to link to a science journal but redirects elsewhere.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists(http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)





No link to Nature exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists

 

[Indeependent]

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

I know this may sound bizarre, but this is what happens when one studies Torah.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

I know this may sound bizarre, but this is what happens when one studies Torah.

Interesting post.

The closest I've come is the study of several of Dennis Prager's books.

I'm working on his explanation of Genesis.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

I know this may sound bizarre, but this is what happens when one studies Torah.

Interesting post.

The closest I've come is the study of several of Dennis Prager's books.

I'm working on his explanation of Genesis.

One of thousands of explanation of Genesis.
After all, God is beyond infinite.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Ah, so you're a Christian.

All you saw was the quote from Matthew?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Ah, so you're a Christian.

All you saw was the quote from Matthew?

I got a kick out that dolt's post, too.

Imagine when I quote Lenin.

 

[Mac1958]

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Ah, so you're a Christian.

All you saw was the quote from Matthew?

I got a kick out that dolt's post, too.

Imagine when I quote Lenin.

Ah, so you're NOT a Christian.

 

[Hollie]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

All PC said was that there is zero proof for evolution.

 

[Hollie]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

All PC said was that there is zero proof for evolution.

A body of evidence demonstrates she is wrong.

She can't argue against it which is why she cuts and pastes phony, edited and altered ''quotes'' she steals from fundie websites.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

All PC said was that there is zero proof for evolution.

A body of evidence demonstrates she is wrong.

She can't argue against it which is why she cuts and pastes phony, edited and altered ''quotes'' she steals from fundie websites.

Do you know what "proof" means.
And no, there is no body of evidence.
Look, there's nothing wrong with a theory as long as people don't try to explain away why it's OK to torture and/or murder living creatures.

 

[alang1216]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

 

[Hollie]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

All PC said was that there is zero proof for evolution.

A body of evidence demonstrates she is wrong.

She can't argue against it which is why she cuts and pastes phony, edited and altered ''quotes'' she steals from fundie websites.

Do you know what "proof" means.
And no, there is no body of evidence.
Look, there's nothing wrong with a theory as long as people don't try to explain away why it's OK to torture and/or murder living creatures.

Ok. I suppose the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, ect., have all conspired to support the fact of biological evolution.

Why do you believe it's OK to torturing and murder living creatures?