The Most Famous Fakes In Science

[PoliticalChic]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.

Keep running. I'm fine with that.

As you wish.


I believe you are requesting another spanking.
My pleasure.

You wrote this:

"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92
They've Always Been 'Racists'



I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.

When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lies, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:

belief
noun

be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \

Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular belief
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs
. Definition of BELIEF


....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.


So we find that lying is not a problem for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In this thread it has been shown that the Left, neo-Marxists, have no compunction about using lies to advance Darwinism. That in itself proves it's not science....it's politics.
Darwin’s theory is demanded by the neo-Marxists who influence academia.



9. Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s book is blurbed with the same view at Amazon:

“Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis.”

And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs….

 

[PoliticalChic]

These are the sorts of posts from government school victims....er, graduates.


“Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.”
The Pretense Called Evolution

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " 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.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

You already had your ass spanked on another evolution thread and yet you spam another one. Are you a masochist and enjoy pain and embarrassment?

 

[Mac1958]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.

Keep running. I'm fine with that.

As you wish.


I believe you are requesting another spanking.
My pleasure.

You wrote this:

"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92
They've Always Been 'Racists'



I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.

When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lies, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:

belief
noun

be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \

Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular belief
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs
. Definition of BELIEF


....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.


So we find that lying is not a problem for you.

I'm not going to read all that.

If pretending that I lied about something makes you feel a little better, and if it provides an excuse to run from my direct questions, great.

By the way, brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " 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.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

You already had your ass spanked on another evolution thread and yet you spam another one. Are you a masochist and enjoy pain and embarrassment?

And now we've heard from the most famous fake in education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.

Keep running. I'm fine with that.

As you wish.


I believe you are requesting another spanking.
My pleasure.

You wrote this:

"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92
They've Always Been 'Racists'



I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.

When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lies, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:

belief
noun

be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \

Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular belief
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs
. Definition of BELIEF


....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.


So we find that lying is not a problem for you.

I'm not going to read all that.

If pretending that I lied about something makes you feel a little better, and if it provides an excuse to run from my direct questions, great.

By the way, brevity is the soul of wit.

Here's the short version: no one with your history should ever use the word 'dishonest.'

 

[Mac1958]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.

Keep running. I'm fine with that.

As you wish.


I believe you are requesting another spanking.
My pleasure.

You wrote this:

"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92
They've Always Been 'Racists'



I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.

When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lies, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:

belief
noun

be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \

Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular belief
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs
. Definition of BELIEF


....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.


So we find that lying is not a problem for you.

I'm not going to read all that.

If pretending that I lied about something makes you feel a little better, and if it provides an excuse to run from my direct questions, great.

By the way, brevity is the soul of wit.

Here's the short version: no one with your history should ever use the word 'dishonest.'

Whatever you'd like. Just keep running.

 

[Hollie]

In this thread it has been shown that the Left, neo-Marxists, have no compunction about using lies to advance Darwinism. That in itself proves it's not science....it's politics.
Darwin’s theory is demanded by the neo-Marxists who influence academia.



9. Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s book is blurbed with the same view at Amazon:

“Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis.”

View attachment 354939

And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs….

Johnson was a darling of the ID'iot creationist crowd. He was a lawyer, not a biologist but why should that matter to the ID'iot creationist mobs with their rakes and pitchforks?

 

[Hollie]

These are the sorts of posts from government school victims....er, graduates.


“Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.”
The Pretense Called Evolution

The threads you linked to are the very threads where you home skoolurs couldn't offer a coherent thought.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In this thread it has been shown that the Left, neo-Marxists, have no compunction about using lies to advance Darwinism. That in itself proves it's not science....it's politics.
Darwin’s theory is demanded by the neo-Marxists who influence academia.



9. Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s book is blurbed with the same view at Amazon:

“Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis.”

View attachment 354939

And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs….

Johnson was a darling of the ID'iot creationist crowd. He was a lawyer, not a biologist but why should that matter to the ID'iot creationist mobs with their rakes and pitchforks?

Noting wrong with rakes and pitchforks, mind you. Lend her a garden fork if you must.. more her size and better for finding her worms

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " 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.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

Okay, you've convinced me.

Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here? Precisely?

Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.

There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.

Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.

The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.


Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?

Actually, it’s the hyper-religious whack jobs who see science and knowledge as a threat.

So who created the big bang?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did He smell it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory….yet the result of government schooling is that their captives come away believing it is factual, proven, irrefutable.
Why? Because the mission of said institution is to weaponize education against religion. That is the Left’s desire.

Our knowledge of the damage mutations cause doesn’t fit Darwinist’s view that these ‘modifications’ advance evolution, that they result in new species. As of this writing, they never have.


I’ve shown examples of outright lies designed to advance Darwinism, yet in 2004, Haeckel’s embryo drawings were used as evidence for Darwinism in numerous textbooks….. in the tenth edition of Starr and Taggart’s Biology; The Unity and Diversity of Life; in an early version of Raver’s Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life; and in the third edition of Voet and Voet’s Biochemistry.
Noted in:
Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! Atrocious!” Natural History (March, 2000), 42–49, 44–46. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Tenth Edition (Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, 2004), 315. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (Dallas, TX: J. M. LeBel Publishers, 2004), 100. Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, Biochemistry, Third Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 4.

Must be some mighty strong reasons to use lies to support a failed thesis.




11. And it continues:
“At the Tribeca Film Festival in April and May 2006, evolutionary biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson premiered Flock of Dodos, a film that claims Haeckel’s embryos haven’t appeared in biology textbooks since 1914. Yet Olson knows that many recent textbooks do contain Haeckel’s faked drawings. Although Flock of Dodos pretends to be a documentary, it is actually a pro-Darwin propaganda film.” Jonathan Wells



So many lies to advance Darwinism……why?

 

[Hollie]

10. The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory….yet the result of government schooling is that their captives come away believing it is factual, proven, irrefutable.
Why? Because the mission of said institution is to weaponize education against religion. That is the Left’s desire.

Our knowledge of the damage mutations cause doesn’t fit Darwinist’s view that these ‘modifications’ advance evolution, that they result in new species. As of this writing, they never have.


I’ve shown examples of outright lies designed to advance Darwinism, yet in 2004, Haeckel’s embryo drawings were used as evidence for Darwinism in numerous textbooks….. in the tenth edition of Starr and Taggart’s Biology; The Unity and Diversity of Life; in an early version of Raver’s Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life; and in the third edition of Voet and Voet’s Biochemistry.
Noted in:
Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! Atrocious!” Natural History (March, 2000), 42–49, 44–46. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Tenth Edition (Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, 2004), 315. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (Dallas, TX: J. M. LeBel Publishers, 2004), 100. Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, Biochemistry, Third Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 4.

Must be some mighty strong reasons to use lies to support a failed thesis.




11. And it continues:
“At the Tribeca Film Festival in April and May 2006, evolutionary biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson premiered Flock of Dodos, a film that claims Haeckel’s embryos haven’t appeared in biology textbooks since 1914. Yet Olson knows that many recent textbooks do contain Haeckel’s faked drawings. Although Flock of Dodos pretends to be a documentary, it is actually a pro-Darwin propaganda film.” Jonathan Wells



So many lies to advance Darwinism……why?

Your silly ''quotes'' from Jonathan Wells, another dishonest hack at the Disco'tute, tells you what you need to know about ID'iot creationism / religionism.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.

Wells happens to be one of the few Discotute creationist with legitimate credentials, a Ph.D. in biological science, which he completed – according to himself – for the sole purpose of “debunking” evolution. He has not yet succeeded in debunking evolution, of course, but has certainly been caught lying, gish galloping, data mangling, quote-mining, misrepresenting evidence, moving goalposts, and spewing nonsense a respectable number of times. A fantastic example of Wells trying to link Darwinism to Nazism is discussed here.

Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

True to form, Wells also wrote the “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution” for high school students (published by the Discovery Institute). They are answered here and here. Instead of trying to point to any shortcomings with the answers, though, Wells prefers to repeat the questions as if nothing has happened, since that is rhetorically more effective, and the goal is to win debates, not find out what's actually the case.

He also participated in the Kansas evolution hearings and has been featured on a Starbucks’s “The Way I See It”.
His newest book, “The Myth of Junk DNA”, discusses the phenomenon of junk DNA, a phenomenon that heartily offends Intelligent Design proponents insofar as it suggests that not everything in the universe has a purpose. The book is just as well-informed as his previous books, and responses to the first three chapters can be found here, here, and here.

Diagnosis: Appallingly inane crackpot, infuriatingly dense, and reprehensibly dishonest, Wells’s lack of insight and inability to even pretend to begin to understand anything before he starts criticizing it based on personal dislike, is of almost epic proportions. Yet he continues to be shockingly influential.

 

[Hollie]

10. The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory….

1. The fossil record supports Darwinian theory.... except in the alternate reality of home skoolurs.

2. It comes as a shock to the Answers in Genesis Cultists that there are places called ''colleges and universities'' where learning occurs.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

Darwin's original hypothesis has undergone extensive modification and expansion, but the central concepts stand firm. Studies in genetics and molecular biology—fields unknown in Darwin's time—have explained the occurrence of the hereditary variations that are essential to natural selection. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision.

Genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively—such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change—the very opposite of chance.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change—the very opposite of chance.

A beautiful truism.. that drives the ID'iots insane. "Based on random or chance elements" can be shortened to "probability." Probability (not ID) drives evolutionary ("adaptive") change.

It just is. It doesn't bleed. It doesn't sweat. It doesn't care about me.. or you.. It doesn't care!

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. The most famous fake in science is the Haeckel embryo diagram…..yet you saw it in school as ‘fact’…..just as Darwin is sold as ‘fact.’



Everyone knew from the start that Haeckel was lying in trying to pass of faked pictures of vertebrate embryos….yet textbooks are still putting that diagram in.



Embryologist Adam Sedgwick pointed out in 1894 that the doctrine of early similarity and later difference is “not in accordance with the facts of development.” Comparing a dogfish with a chicken, Sedgwick wrote: “There is no stage of development in which the unaided eye would fail to distinguish between them with ease.”

It is “not necessary to emphasize further these embryonic differences,” Sedgwick continued, because “every embryologist knows that they exist and could bring forward innumerable instances of them. I need only say with regard to them that a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development.”

Adam Sedgwick, “On the Law of Development Commonly Known as von Baer’s Law; and on the Significance of Ancestral Rudiments in Embryonic Development,” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 36 (1894), 35–52.



And in 1987 embryologist Richard P. Elinson emphasized that the early developmental stages of frogs, chicks, and mice “are radically different.” William W. Ballard, “Problems of gastrulation: real and verbal,” BioScience 26 (1976): 36–39. Richard P. Elinson, “Change in Developmental Patterns: Embryos of Amphibians with Large Eggs,” 1–21 in R. A. Raff & E. C. Raff (editors), Development as an Evolutionary Process, Vol. 8 (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1987).



What can be said in defense of the Darwinist liars?
“In any other scientific field, people making excuses for fraud like this would probably be disgraced or drummed out of the profession.” Jonathan Wells

 

[Grumblenuts]

12. The most famous fake in science is the Haeckel embryo diagram…..yet you saw it in school as ‘fact’…..just as Darwin is sold as ‘fact.’

Bullshit.
"Darwin relied far more on von Baer's work. Haeckel's work was published in 1866 and 1874, years after Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (1859)."

Everyone knew from the start that Haeckel was lying {...snip...}
Adam Sedgwick pointed out in 1894

Let's see: 1894 - 1866 =

Whoa, 28 years!?..

Who's the little, fat liar?

 

[Hollie]

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?

www.livescience.com

Natural selection
To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:

Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.

Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.




1. What can be said in defense of fundamentalist cranks? Well, not much.

2. The fundamentalist ministries will always draw a certain angry, self-hating element