Tossing Those Terms Around

[Toddsterpatriot]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells

“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

If it did, you wouldn't be afraid to repost the proof here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

“Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year.

This isn't proof that Darwinism is wrong.

Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin

Neither is this.

Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”''

So what?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.


How could you miss that?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.

"Because I said so" it is the central theme of whatever you're claiming here.

Why don't you list what you believe is Darwin's central theme, and watch me destroy it.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

I asked you for the central premises of Darwin's theory.

It appears you were unable to.

No wonder you can't understand my threads.

I asked you for the central premises of Darwin's theory.

So you won't be destroying the definition of Darwinism? LOL!

No wonder you can't understand my threads.

I understand you haven't disproved Darwinism yet. Try again?

Try what???


You haven't been able to show you know the several premises of Darwinism.

If you ever figure them out, you can bet I will eviscerate same.

Maybe that's why you won't post them.

 

[rightwinger]

Only Home Skool kids still believe evolution is a myth

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells

“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

If it did, you wouldn't be afraid to repost the proof here.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Dobzhansky claimed that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of [Darwinian] evolution.”

One is reminded of how Soviet biological science clung to the same erroneous Lamarckian views that Darwin used to explain his ‘random modifications’ and ‘natural selection.’ They practiced political science, Lysenkoism…..



“Can you get chocolate milk from brown cows? Believe it or not, during the cold war, Soviet scientists tried many experiments to achieve a very similar goal starting with plants. In 1927, an agronomist named Trofim Lysenko working at a remote agricultural station in Azerbaijan, ….. Lysenko’s main contribution was the idea that such a transformation could be inherited to the following generations without any treatment.

By 1938 he had been named president of the Academy of Agricultural Science where he used his influence to enforce adherence to his ideas. … Lysekno’s ideas reached the ear of Soviet leaders and would become doctrine for decades. Several books have documented Lysenko’s rise to leadership, the interrelationship of his political leanings and scientific beliefs. The resultant purge of ideas and the scientists who advocated them serves as a lesson against political ideology influencing the scientific method.”
Lamarck, Lysenko, and Modern Day Epigenetics - Mind the Science Gap



"Lysekno’s ideas reached the ear of Soviet leaders and would become doctrine for decades."
Exactly the same ‘political science’ is practiced in the US as Darwinian evolution.



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

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology

It also covers the idea that each of us has a purpose, a meaning in living.
It is the very opposite of nihilism, secularism.

b. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.”
Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary



The rule is, when you combine science and politics, all you get is politics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Try what???


You haven't been able to show you know the several premises of Darwinism.

If you ever figure them out, you can bet I will eviscerate same.

Maybe that's why you won't post them.

If you're afraid to post your evidence that disproves Darwinism, just say so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells

“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

If it did, you wouldn't be afraid to repost the proof here.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

You shouldn't lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try what???


You haven't been able to show you know the several premises of Darwinism.

If you ever figure them out, you can bet I will eviscerate same.

Maybe that's why you won't post them.

If you're afraid to post your evidence that disproves Darwinism, just say so.

You'd rather repeat your vapid claim, than simply show you understand Darwin?

OK

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells

“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

If it did, you wouldn't be afraid to repost the proof here.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

You shouldn't lie.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

10. Dobzhansky claimed that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of [Darwinian] evolution.”

One is reminded of how Soviet biological science clung to the same erroneous Lamarckian views that Darwin used to explain his ‘random modifications’ and ‘natural selection.’ They practiced political science, Lysenkoism…..



“Can you get chocolate milk from brown cows? Believe it or not, during the cold war, Soviet scientists tried many experiments to achieve a very similar goal starting with plants. In 1927, an agronomist named Trofim Lysenko working at a remote agricultural station in Azerbaijan, ….. Lysenko’s main contribution was the idea that such a transformation could be inherited to the following generations without any treatment.

By 1938 he had been named president of the Academy of Agricultural Science where he used his influence to enforce adherence to his ideas. … Lysekno’s ideas reached the ear of Soviet leaders and would become doctrine for decades. Several books have documented Lysenko’s rise to leadership, the interrelationship of his political leanings and scientific beliefs. The resultant purge of ideas and the scientists who advocated them serves as a lesson against political ideology influencing the scientific method.”
Lamarck, Lysenko, and Modern Day Epigenetics - Mind the Science Gap



"Lysekno’s ideas reached the ear of Soviet leaders and would become doctrine for decades."
Exactly the same ‘political science’ is practiced in the US as Darwinian evolution.



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

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology

It also covers the idea that each of us has a purpose, a meaning in living.
It is the very opposite of nihilism, secularism.

b. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.”
Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary



The rule is, when you combine science and politics, all you get is politics.

The Soviet Union sucked.

Is that your proof that Darwinism is wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Try what???


You haven't been able to show you know the several premises of Darwinism.

If you ever figure them out, you can bet I will eviscerate same.

Maybe that's why you won't post them.

If you're afraid to post your evidence that disproves Darwinism, just say so.

You'd rather repeat your vapid claim, than simply show you understand Darwin?

OK

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

I need to understand Darwin before you can disprove anything? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells

“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

If it did, you wouldn't be afraid to repost the proof here.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

You shouldn't lie.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.

Awesome! So post your proof instead of running away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Dobzhansky claimed that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of [Darwinian] evolution.”

One is reminded of how Soviet biological science clung to the same erroneous Lamarckian views that Darwin used to explain his ‘random modifications’ and ‘natural selection.’ They practiced political science, Lysenkoism…..



“Can you get chocolate milk from brown cows? Believe it or not, during the cold war, Soviet scientists tried many experiments to achieve a very similar goal starting with plants. In 1927, an agronomist named Trofim Lysenko working at a remote agricultural station in Azerbaijan, ….. Lysenko’s main contribution was the idea that such a transformation could be inherited to the following generations without any treatment.

By 1938 he had been named president of the Academy of Agricultural Science where he used his influence to enforce adherence to his ideas. … Lysekno’s ideas reached the ear of Soviet leaders and would become doctrine for decades. Several books have documented Lysenko’s rise to leadership, the interrelationship of his political leanings and scientific beliefs. The resultant purge of ideas and the scientists who advocated them serves as a lesson against political ideology influencing the scientific method.”
Lamarck, Lysenko, and Modern Day Epigenetics - Mind the Science Gap



"Lysekno’s ideas reached the ear of Soviet leaders and would become doctrine for decades."
Exactly the same ‘political science’ is practiced in the US as Darwinian evolution.



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

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology

It also covers the idea that each of us has a purpose, a meaning in living.
It is the very opposite of nihilism, secularism.

b. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.”
Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary



The rule is, when you combine science and politics, all you get is politics.

The Soviet Union sucked.

Is that your proof that Darwinism is wrong?

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try what???


You haven't been able to show you know the several premises of Darwinism.

If you ever figure them out, you can bet I will eviscerate same.

Maybe that's why you won't post them.

If you're afraid to post your evidence that disproves Darwinism, just say so.

You'd rather repeat your vapid claim, than simply show you understand Darwin?

OK

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

I need to understand Darwin before you can disprove anything? LOL!

Is this your admission that you are clueless about what you are trying to defend????

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells

“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

If it did, you wouldn't be afraid to repost the proof here.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

You shouldn't lie.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.

Awesome! So post your proof instead of running away.

Run from what???? You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

And you haven't disproven it.

Start here.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

And you haven't disproven it.

Start here.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

If Darwin was right, we'd be miles deep in bones today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Darwin was right, we'd be miles deep in bones today.

Why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

And you haven't disproven it.

Start here.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Run from what???? You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

And you haven't disproven it.

Start here.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Run from what???? You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

The evolution of species by natural selection.

Now......refute it!!!!!