Voting For Scientific Truth????

[PoliticalChic]

Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Wow!

The indoctrination is indelible with your sort, huh?

Of course I understand it.....and what it is not.

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals


In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor



Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?




There's no 'discussion.'

I'm explaining the truth to you......you can accept it or not.

Ignoring every documented, linked and sourced quote that I provide explains your problem: indoctrination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

I tell you what, why don't you post a few scientific studies on creationism, and find some scientists who both carried these out and stand by the results.

You are the one bringing up creationism.

My posts deal purely with science.

LMf'nAO!!

Like that isn't what you were getting at.

The axiom that applies to you: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[Dick Foster]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Actually its logic and reason causing those hands to go up not fear and ignorance which are the principal reasons more don't go up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Actually its logic and reason causing those hands to go up not fear and ignorance which are the principal reasons more don't go up.

Explain.

 

[Shelzin]

Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Wow!

The indoctrination is indelible with your sort, huh?

Of course I understand it.....and what it is not.

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals


In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor



Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?




There's no 'discussion.'

I'm explaining the truth to you......you can accept it or not.

Ignoring every documented, linked and sourced quote that I provide explains your problem: indoctrination.

Sooner or later you are going to understand that I'm not going to go any further than this. Until you do this, you are right... it's not going to be a discussion.

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Edit2:

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

 

[alang1216]

No one disputes the diversity of life.

Darwinism is the belief that this is due to the accumulation of modifications, ending in a new species.

Where is the proof, and why do you accept it sans proof?

I accept it based on the accumulated evidence. You demand proof and ignore evidence. Is there any experiment that has ever created gravity? So why do you accept gravity as fact? Evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Wow!

The indoctrination is indelible with your sort, huh?

Of course I understand it.....and what it is not.

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals


In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor



Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?




There's no 'discussion.'

I'm explaining the truth to you......you can accept it or not.

Ignoring every documented, linked and sourced quote that I provide explains your problem: indoctrination.

Sooner or later you are going to understand that I'm not going to go any further than this. Until you do this, you are right... it's not going to be a discussion.

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Edit2:

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

So you admit no selection of any sort has ever led to a new species

Excellent.

The beginning of enlightenment.


Clearly there is no proof of Darwinism, yet you bend the neck and the knee to it.

Not the smartest of behaviors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Wow!

The indoctrination is indelible with your sort, huh?

Of course I understand it.....and what it is not.

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals


In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor



Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?




There's no 'discussion.'

I'm explaining the truth to you......you can accept it or not.

Ignoring every documented, linked and sourced quote that I provide explains your problem: indoctrination.

Sooner or later you are going to understand that I'm not going to go any further than this. Until you do this, you are right... it's not going to be a discussion.

You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Edit2:

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Now, as you have admitted half of what I've said.......here's the other half.

Do you know what has been found when there are those modifications that Darwin spoke of?


One of two things:

a. They persist as alterations in that species.

or


b. they are lethal.


Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

 

[Dick Foster]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Actually its logic and reason causing those hands to go up not fear and ignorance which are the principal reasons more don't go up.

Explain.

If you need it explained any further then obviously you don't or at least you don't want to understand. Let me sum it up this way. You are definitely NOT going to live forever.

 

[Shelzin]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Actually its logic and reason causing those hands to go up not fear and ignorance which are the principal reasons more don't go up.

Explain.

If you need it explained any further then obviously you don't or at least you don't want to understand. Let me sum it up this way. You are definitely NOT going to live forever.

'You are definitely NOT going to live forever.'

Wonderful.....thanks for the bad news!





Still haven't articulated your point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.
Mathematicians put the chance of a mutation as being helpful....'natural selection'.....as infinitesimal.


Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

 

[Shelzin]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

I guess post #32 is over your head, huh?

It proves that what you have been tricked into believing is not possible..

 

[Shelzin]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

I guess post #32 is over your head, huh?

It proves that what you have been tricked into believing is not possible..

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

 

[alang1216]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.
Mathematicians put the chance of a mutation as being helpful....'natural selection'.....as infinitesimal.


Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

A very simplistic view of biology. First, there are billions of people and, except for identical twins, no two share the exact same DNA. That is a lot of variation. Second, we know some mutations have proven useful:

Sickle cell disease is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin-Beta gene found on chromosome 11. Hemoglobin transports oxygen from the lungs to other parts of the body. Red blood cells with normal hemoglobin (hemoglobin-A) are smooth and round and glide through blood vessels. The sickle cell trait provides a survival advantage against malaria fatality over people with normal hemoglobin in regions where malaria is endemic. The trait is known to cause significantly fewer deaths due to malaria, especially when Plasmodium falciparum is the causative organism.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

I guess post #32 is over your head, huh?

It proves that what you have been tricked into believing is not possible..

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

False.

You really don't understand DNA, or mutations.

No wonder you buy the Darwin propaganda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.
Mathematicians put the chance of a mutation as being helpful....'natural selection'.....as infinitesimal.


Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

A very simplistic view of biology. First, there are billions of people and, except for identical twins, no two share the exact same DNA. That is a lot of variation. Second, we know some mutations have proven useful:

Sickle cell disease is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin-Beta gene found on chromosome 11. Hemoglobin transports oxygen from the lungs to other parts of the body. Red blood cells with normal hemoglobin (hemoglobin-A) are smooth and round and glide through blood vessels. The sickle cell trait provides a survival advantage against malaria fatality over people with normal hemoglobin in regions where malaria is endemic. The trait is known to cause significantly fewer deaths due to malaria, especially when Plasmodium falciparum is the causative organism.​

Another dolt who doesn't have a clue about the complexity of DNA.

 

[Shelzin]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

I guess post #32 is over your head, huh?

It proves that what you have been tricked into believing is not possible..

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

False.

You really don't understand DNA, or mutations.

No wonder you buy the Darwin propaganda.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never....NEVER.....do they do what Darwin's theory said they do: cause speciation.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

Great.....now I get to explain to you why it won't lead to a new species.

Here's your lesson in mutations.


Darwin's 'modifications' would be what we see as alterations in DNA.
You do know what DNA is, don't you?

Without said alternations, no change in structure or biochemistry.

Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..
It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."



Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species.


Changes do not lead to new species, they lead to extinction.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

I guess post #32 is over your head, huh?

It proves that what you have been tricked into believing is not possible..

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

False.

You really don't understand DNA, or mutations.

No wonder you buy the Darwin propaganda.

It doesn't lead to a new species within a human lifetime... Or even several hundred human lifetimes. We are an arrogant bunch aren't we? If it doesn't happen when we can measure it, then it obviously doesn't happen.

You can keep repeating that, but it certainly isn't science: it's blind faith.

That's the religion that government schools teach: Militant Secularism, and you've bought it.