To Fight The Unbeatable Foe

[alang1216]

As Darwinism has not only not been proven.....but has been disproven by developments......it has no right to be taught as the only basis for the modification of organism over time.

Is there another "basis for the modification of organism over time"? I thought you said 'no one knows' how new species come about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As a collector of fossils, I have held the evidence for evolution in my very own hands. Go to any road cut in the Appalachian Mountains and you can see it for yourself. Of course you'd have to open your eyes AND your mind to get past what you've been indoctrinated to believe in.

It is not evidence for Darwinism theory unless it can be documented to show speciation.

Then it's a very good thing that it does show speciation. The Appalachians are mainly marine sediments laid down over millions of years. In one bed are various marine creatures while in younger beds are a completely different assemblage of creatures. Old species have gone extinct and new species have taken their place.

Link or lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In addition, the creation-scientists were arguing that the teaching of evolution itself had a religious objective, namely to discredit the idea that a supernatural being created mankind.

That's just silly. Science takes no position on God, they occupy different realms so believing in one should have no impact on believing in the other. Evolution provides the best explanation of how species came to be. You have said yourself there is no other explanation. It seems obvious to me that, if there is a God, he must have a mechanism for creation and the most obvious one is evolution.

Believing in a doctrine sans proof is known as faith.

Darwinism......your faith.

Go forth and sin no more.

I have faith in science because the evidence is there for anyone to review. You have faith in what others have told you since you can't review their evidence FOR anything, only their pointing to gaps in other theories.

"I have faith in science ....."
Among so very many things you don't understand is the difference between faith and science.

Militant Secularism is your religion, Darwinism is the particular denomination.


I provided a recognized scientist stating exactly what I have posted.


This:


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.

Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms."
The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html


You, on the other hand, have become our best source of greenhouse gases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Darwinism has not only not been proven.....but has been disproven by developments......it has no right to be taught as the only basis for the modification of organism over time.

Is there another "basis for the modification of organism over time"? I thought you said 'no one knows' how new species come about?

Exactly: no one has proven any....ANY....of the numerous theories.

Certain easily manipulated simpletons......you......have accepted the one imposed in government school.


There is no hope for your recovery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. “On November 5, 1981, the late Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it: One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ”

He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”
http://www.creation-facts.org/scientists/colin-patterson/


This, of course, is exactly the idea in my posts.



Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo- knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not.

Yet one is imposed, the other banned.

Why?

 

[alang1216]

As a collector of fossils, I have held the evidence for evolution in my very own hands. Go to any road cut in the Appalachian Mountains and you can see it for yourself. Of course you'd have to open your eyes AND your mind to get past what you've been indoctrinated to believe in.

It is not evidence for Darwinism theory unless it can be documented to show speciation.

Then it's a very good thing that it does show speciation. The Appalachians are mainly marine sediments laid down over millions of years. In one bed are various marine creatures while in younger beds are a completely different assemblage of creatures. Old species have gone extinct and new species have taken their place.

Link or lie.

If you really care: link

 

[alang1216]

Exactly: no one has proven any....ANY....of the numerous theories.

Numerous theories? What theories besides evolution have any scientific evidence to support them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As a collector of fossils, I have held the evidence for evolution in my very own hands. Go to any road cut in the Appalachian Mountains and you can see it for yourself. Of course you'd have to open your eyes AND your mind to get past what you've been indoctrinated to believe in.

It is not evidence for Darwinism theory unless it can be documented to show speciation.

Then it's a very good thing that it does show speciation. The Appalachians are mainly marine sediments laid down over millions of years. In one bed are various marine creatures while in younger beds are a completely different assemblage of creatures. Old species have gone extinct and new species have taken their place.

Link or lie.

If you really care: link

And you are comparing a student publication to the scientific journals that I provide?


This is exactly why a higher level of poster is needed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly: no one has proven any....ANY....of the numerous theories.

Numerous theories? What theories besides evolution have any scientific evidence to support them?

And this is the result of your never having read a book.

 

[alang1216]

In addition, the creation-scientists were arguing that the teaching of evolution itself had a religious objective, namely to discredit the idea that a supernatural being created mankind.

That's just silly. Science takes no position on God, they occupy different realms so believing in one should have no impact on believing in the other. Evolution provides the best explanation of how species came to be. You have said yourself there is no other explanation. It seems obvious to me that, if there is a God, he must have a mechanism for creation and the most obvious one is evolution.

Believing in a doctrine sans proof is known as faith.

Darwinism......your faith.

Go forth and sin no more.

I have faith in science because the evidence is there for anyone to review. You have faith in what others have told you since you can't review their evidence FOR anything, only their pointing to gaps in other theories.

"I have faith in science ....."
Among so very many things you don't understand is the difference between faith and science.

Militant Secularism is your religion, Darwinism is the particular denomination.


I provided a recognized scientist stating exactly what I have posted.


This:


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.

Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms."
The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html


You, on the other hand, have become our best source of greenhouse gases.

Yet no one can refute that new species have appeared, that is pretty powerful evidence.

You are like those people who studied the bumblebee and determined that it was aerodynamically impossible for it to fly.

 

[alang1216]

As a collector of fossils, I have held the evidence for evolution in my very own hands. Go to any road cut in the Appalachian Mountains and you can see it for yourself. Of course you'd have to open your eyes AND your mind to get past what you've been indoctrinated to believe in.

It is not evidence for Darwinism theory unless it can be documented to show speciation.

Then it's a very good thing that it does show speciation. The Appalachians are mainly marine sediments laid down over millions of years. In one bed are various marine creatures while in younger beds are a completely different assemblage of creatures. Old species have gone extinct and new species have taken their place.

Link or lie.

If you really care: link

And you are comparing a student publication to the scientific journals that I provide?


This is exactly why a higher level of poster is needed.

I think it is appropriate to your level of understanding of the subject matter.

 

[alang1216]

Exactly: no one has proven any....ANY....of the numerous theories.

Numerous theories? What theories besides evolution have any scientific evidence to support them?

And this is the result of your never having read a book.

And your inability to answer direct questions when you make stuff up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In addition, the creation-scientists were arguing that the teaching of evolution itself had a religious objective, namely to discredit the idea that a supernatural being created mankind.

That's just silly. Science takes no position on God, they occupy different realms so believing in one should have no impact on believing in the other. Evolution provides the best explanation of how species came to be. You have said yourself there is no other explanation. It seems obvious to me that, if there is a God, he must have a mechanism for creation and the most obvious one is evolution.

Believing in a doctrine sans proof is known as faith.

Darwinism......your faith.

Go forth and sin no more.

I have faith in science because the evidence is there for anyone to review. You have faith in what others have told you since you can't review their evidence FOR anything, only their pointing to gaps in other theories.

"I have faith in science ....."
Among so very many things you don't understand is the difference between faith and science.

Militant Secularism is your religion, Darwinism is the particular denomination.


I provided a recognized scientist stating exactly what I have posted.


This:


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids.

Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms."
The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html


You, on the other hand, have become our best source of greenhouse gases.

Yet no one can refute that new species have appeared, that is pretty powerful evidence.

You are like those people who studied the bumblebee and determined that it was aerodynamically impossible for it to fly.

"studied" is the essential difference between us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly: no one has proven any....ANY....of the numerous theories.

Numerous theories? What theories besides evolution have any scientific evidence to support them?

And this is the result of your never having read a book.

And your inability to answer direct questions when you make stuff up.

Everything I post is linked, sourced and documented.

I can do that because I read books.

Don't you wish you could say that?

 

[harmonica]

Today, July 10th, was the start of the Scopes Trial, also called Scopes Monkey Trial, (July 10–21, 1925, Dayton, Tennessee, U.S.), highly publicized trial (known as the “Monkey Trial”) of a Dayton, Tennessee, high-school teacher, John T. Scopes, charged with violating state law by teaching Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The trial’s proceedings helped to bring the scientific evidence for evolution into the public sphere while also stoking a national debate over the veracity of evolution that continues to the present day.” Britannica.com



A perfect time to put the trial in perspective.



You know the song, the Impossible Dream. Well, perhaps sometimes just being willing to fight will have to be enough.



1.Being the pessimist that I am, I look at the advances the Left, the religion of Militant Secularism has made, the chaos in our streets enabled by the major party, find it difficult to envision better times ahead for America.

“This is precisely the time — right now, tonight — to defend the institutions we desperately need to keep in this country,” Carlson added. “Those institutions include the nuclear family, our freedom of speech, small independent businesses, absolute color blindness under the law, the noble tradition of non-violent protests. Those are the things that make us proud to be Americans. Those are the things that make America a place worth living in. We need to defend these things with everything we have. All of us must defend them, including the president. That is his hope of reelection. For the rest of us, it is our only hope as a country.”
Tucker Carlson

And let's include freedom of thought, and freedom of religion....the antitheses of Democrat doctrine.


2. But it is dissipating before our eyes, and there is no cavalry coming to the rescue. Did you think the courts would save America? Don’t.

“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.
The complaint here is not that old virtues are eroding and new values rising. Morality inevitably evolves….What is objectionable is that, in too many instances, a natural evolution of the moral balance is blocked and a minority morality forced upon us by judicial decrees.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values,” xi

The Left, the neo-Marxists, either control the legal system, or has the ability to co-opt the ones we thought were conservative, originalists, textualists.



3. When it comes to being able to understand right and wrong, why is it that some elite supposedly has a better grasp on it? Why isn’t voluntary prayer allowed? How Orwellian is it to treat religion and morality as though it is evil, and to be banished from the public arena? And that, in the face of a century when atheistic doctrines caused the deaths of over 100 million human being.

“The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.”
David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture."



4. The media made an agreement with the nascent nation to be fair and honest, and in return was given a special place in our first amendment. The lied. The media, the schools, the legal system….all lined up against the principles upon which this nation was created, promised.

Militant Secularism appears to be the unbeatable foe.

WTF? that's a lot of babble..you don't make any sense
..what's the main point?--you are all over the place

 

[alang1216]

Everything I post is linked, sourced and documented.

I can do that because I read books.

Don't you wish you could say that?

What I write is original and is based on my knowledge and experience. Don't you wish you could say that?

I'm not as impressed as you are by your reading material, you should know Dr. Suess isn't a real doctor and doesn't have a Ph.D.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything I post is linked, sourced and documented.

I can do that because I read books.

Don't you wish you could say that?

What I write is original and is based on my knowledge and experience. Don't you wish you could say that?

I'm not as impressed as you are by your reading material, you should know Dr. Suess isn't a real doctor and doesn't have a Ph.D.

"What I write is original and is based on my knowledge and experience ...:

Exactly.

Problem is, you have neither knowledge nor experience in this matter.

Now, if the thread was based on spectacular finds via dumpster diving, you'd have the expertise.