What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

When Science….Isn’t

OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
109,459
Reaction score
44,210
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
9. Statistics are useful in determining whether the Fascists….er, Liberals,….are correct in advancing fake ‘solutions.’ They embrace clearly insane and failed agendas, no matter the fatalities that they cause.

But….they are the party of Death.



“ Transgender individuals have a suicide rate of ~45% vs. the ~1.2% rate in the general population.” A Christian Doctor In Our Brave New Trans World



“Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”
Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.




“We do know that the lifetime suicide attempt rate for transgender people is extraordinarily high.[1] [2] We also know that post transition, mental health comorbidities remain high....
[1] https://transequality.org/sites/...

[2] http://www.thetaskforce.org/stat...

[3] Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-s...who-have-transitioned-vs-those-who-have-noted risk of suicide.[3]
Your links are to religious nutters WHO WEREN'T HOM SKOOLED!!!!!!o_O
You appear deeply traumatized that no one ever loved you enough to home school you.
Whatever could the reason be?
Too bad you were stuck at home with a religious fanatic that denied science and saw commies everywhere. I went exclusively to private school because my parents weren't dirt poor like all the hom skool people I know.


Oooo.......I seem to have hit a nerve, in suggesting a lack of love in those early years.


BTW.....home schooled students out perform government schooled students by every metric.

And....don't have a jaundiced view of our nation, and our heritage.


Too late for you, huh?
I didn't go to a public school, apparently, your reading skills are lacking, as well as your social skills. And in your delusions, you tag fellow Americans as commies non-stop. Or Nazis. Making you TOTALLY un-American. You can't fight with ideas so you go for the ad hominems and such. Grow up.


I was trying not to say you were lying.
I've seen your posts.....there is no evidence that you attended any school at all.



Look, I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
22,902
Reaction score
2,085
Points
190
9. Statistics are useful in determining whether the Fascists….er, Liberals,….are correct in advancing fake ‘solutions.’ They embrace clearly insane and failed agendas, no matter the fatalities that they cause.

But….they are the party of Death.



“ Transgender individuals have a suicide rate of ~45% vs. the ~1.2% rate in the general population.” A Christian Doctor In Our Brave New Trans World



“Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”
Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.




“We do know that the lifetime suicide attempt rate for transgender people is extraordinarily high.[1] [2] We also know that post transition, mental health comorbidities remain high....
[1] https://transequality.org/sites/...

[2] http://www.thetaskforce.org/stat...

[3] Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-s...who-have-transitioned-vs-those-who-have-noted risk of suicide.[3]
Your links are to religious nutters WHO WEREN'T HOM SKOOLED!!!!!!o_O
You appear deeply traumatized that no one ever loved you enough to home school you.
Whatever could the reason be?
Too bad you were stuck at home with a religious fanatic that denied science and saw commies everywhere. I went exclusively to private school because my parents weren't dirt poor like all the hom skool people I know.


Oooo.......I seem to have hit a nerve, in suggesting a lack of love in those early years.


BTW.....home schooled students out perform government schooled students by every metric.

And....don't have a jaundiced view of our nation, and our heritage.


Too late for you, huh?
I didn't go to a public school, apparently, your reading skills are lacking, as well as your social skills. And in your delusions, you tag fellow Americans as commies non-stop. Or Nazis. Making you TOTALLY un-American. You can't fight with ideas so you go for the ad hominems and such. Grow up.


I was trying not to say you were lying.
I've seen your posts.....there is no evidence that you attended any school at all.



Look, I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
Prove I was lying or else YOU'RE a liar. And Asians are so good looking that practically no Whites will marry them. And if that's you in your avatar, did someone hit you in the face with a frying pan, cuz it sure is flat.

As for science, do you deny all of it, or just most of it? Is gravity a commie plot from the Left?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
109,459
Reaction score
44,210
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
9. Statistics are useful in determining whether the Fascists….er, Liberals,….are correct in advancing fake ‘solutions.’ They embrace clearly insane and failed agendas, no matter the fatalities that they cause.

But….they are the party of Death.



“ Transgender individuals have a suicide rate of ~45% vs. the ~1.2% rate in the general population.” A Christian Doctor In Our Brave New Trans World



“Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”
Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.




“We do know that the lifetime suicide attempt rate for transgender people is extraordinarily high.[1] [2] We also know that post transition, mental health comorbidities remain high....
[1] https://transequality.org/sites/...

[2] http://www.thetaskforce.org/stat...

[3] Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-s...who-have-transitioned-vs-those-who-have-noted risk of suicide.[3]
Your links are to religious nutters WHO WEREN'T HOM SKOOLED!!!!!!o_O
You appear deeply traumatized that no one ever loved you enough to home school you.
Whatever could the reason be?
Too bad you were stuck at home with a religious fanatic that denied science and saw commies everywhere. I went exclusively to private school because my parents weren't dirt poor like all the hom skool people I know.


Oooo.......I seem to have hit a nerve, in suggesting a lack of love in those early years.


BTW.....home schooled students out perform government schooled students by every metric.

And....don't have a jaundiced view of our nation, and our heritage.


Too late for you, huh?
I didn't go to a public school, apparently, your reading skills are lacking, as well as your social skills. And in your delusions, you tag fellow Americans as commies non-stop. Or Nazis. Making you TOTALLY un-American. You can't fight with ideas so you go for the ad hominems and such. Grow up.


I was trying not to say you were lying.
I've seen your posts.....there is no evidence that you attended any school at all.



Look, I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
Prove I was lying or else YOU'RE a liar. And Asians are so good looking that practically no Whites will marry them. And if that's you in your avatar, did someone hit you in the face with a frying pan, cuz it sure is flat.

As for science, do you deny all of it, or just most of it? Is gravity a commie plot from the Left?


I already did.

Your posts are vapid and lacking of erudition. Certainly not those of an educated individual.

'erudition' ....Better look that up, dunce.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
22,902
Reaction score
2,085
Points
190
9. Statistics are useful in determining whether the Fascists….er, Liberals,….are correct in advancing fake ‘solutions.’ They embrace clearly insane and failed agendas, no matter the fatalities that they cause.

But….they are the party of Death.



“ Transgender individuals have a suicide rate of ~45% vs. the ~1.2% rate in the general population.” A Christian Doctor In Our Brave New Trans World



“Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”
Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.




“We do know that the lifetime suicide attempt rate for transgender people is extraordinarily high.[1] [2] We also know that post transition, mental health comorbidities remain high....
[1] https://transequality.org/sites/...

[2] http://www.thetaskforce.org/stat...

[3] Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-s...who-have-transitioned-vs-those-who-have-noted risk of suicide.[3]
Your links are to religious nutters WHO WEREN'T HOM SKOOLED!!!!!!o_O
You appear deeply traumatized that no one ever loved you enough to home school you.
Whatever could the reason be?
Too bad you were stuck at home with a religious fanatic that denied science and saw commies everywhere. I went exclusively to private school because my parents weren't dirt poor like all the hom skool people I know.


Oooo.......I seem to have hit a nerve, in suggesting a lack of love in those early years.


BTW.....home schooled students out perform government schooled students by every metric.

And....don't have a jaundiced view of our nation, and our heritage.


Too late for you, huh?
I didn't go to a public school, apparently, your reading skills are lacking, as well as your social skills. And in your delusions, you tag fellow Americans as commies non-stop. Or Nazis. Making you TOTALLY un-American. You can't fight with ideas so you go for the ad hominems and such. Grow up.


I was trying not to say you were lying.
I've seen your posts.....there is no evidence that you attended any school at all.



Look, I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
Prove I was lying or else YOU'RE a liar. And Asians are so good looking that practically no Whites will marry them. And if that's you in your avatar, did someone hit you in the face with a frying pan, cuz it sure is flat.

As for science, do you deny all of it, or just most of it? Is gravity a commie plot from the Left?


I already did.

Your posts are vapid and lacking of erudition. Certainly not those of an educated individual.

'erudition' ....Better look that up, dunce.
It means flat-faced donkey from North Korea that can't even stick to her own OP because she feels foolish for denying science.
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
1,065
Points
315
These were the goals of the communist party, as read on the floor of Congress January 10, 1963.
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
""The Zionist Communist Takeover Of
America - 45 Declared Goals
""

CONSPIRACY and HATE Website Rense.com
BIG on anti-Semitism you FILTHY website Scraping POS.
Aliens, 9/11 Troofers, etc. They have it all.
YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THIS WHEN YOU POSTED IT.
You and it have been around for years.




`
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
109,459
Reaction score
44,210
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
These were the goals of the communist party, as read on the floor of Congress January 10, 1963.
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
""The Zionist Communist Takeover Of
America - 45 Declared Goals
""

CONSPIRACY and HATE Website Rense.com
BIG on anti-Semitism you FILTHY website Scraping POS.
Aliens, 9/11 Troofers, etc. They have it all.
YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THIS WHEN YOU POSTED IT.
You and it have been around for years.




`


I quoted what represented my view....


....and you quoted what represented your view.
 

LuckyDuck

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
3,183
Points
995
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
109,459
Reaction score
44,210
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.



Simple enough for you to win......or, in this case, lose the argument:


State the three or four pillars on which Darwinian evolution is based....


....and provide proof.


I'll easily eviscerate what you attempt.




BTW:
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Aren't you tired of being a dupe?
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,920
Reaction score
5,651
Points
1,830
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.



Simple enough for you to win......or, in this case, lose the argument:


State the three or four pillars on which Darwinian evolution is based....


....and provide proof.


I'll easily eviscerate what you attempt.




BTW:
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Aren't you tired of being a dupe?

1. How cute. Your typical cut and paste Dean Kenyon “quote”.

2. Why do the hyper-religious expect anyone to accept the opinions of YEC’ist charlatans?


Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.
In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.

Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.


Aren’t you tired of cutting and pasting from YEC’ist cranks?
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
786
Points
130
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.

On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It reflects a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
 
Last edited:

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
1,065
Points
315
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.
LOL Rev.
""Creation Research Society Quarterly "

Got any Real source you Indoctrinated Freak/Clown?
`
 
Last edited:

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
786
Points
130
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.
LOL Rev.
""Creation Research Society Quarterly "

Got any real source you Indoctrinated Freak/Clown?
`
I would have to say that you reveal yourself to be the one indoctrinated and inhospitable. On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It sound like a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,920
Reaction score
5,651
Points
1,830
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.

On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It reflects a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.




Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.
A brilliant example of how Thomas approaches science (first, decide what the conclusion is; second, try to find one piece of evidence that fits; third, ignore everything else) can be found here. The topic is a recent article in Geology pointing out that the surface of Venus is relatively young, on the order of a few hundred million years – Thomas’s screed doesn’t link to the original article, for obvious reasons. Instead, he concludes that “secular geologists anticipate that additional measurements may help resolve the vexing Venusian riddles, but satisfying answers may never come without something more substantial than just new data.” Oh, yes. We should instead conclude that Venus is young (Thomas says less than 10,000 years; researchers say the surface of Venus – not the planet, mind – is about 750 million; no real difference), and forget about all those other planets and all that other data.

Here he tries to deal with the Flood, in particular the existence of several flood myths, many of which far older than the Bible. Here, on the other hand, he argues that the genetic afflictions caused by intermarriage is proof that our genes must have been better in the past (Adam and Eve; the Noah bottleneck, and so on). In other words, we are not better off genetically now; hence, evolution is false. Egad! And here is his critique of the new Cosmos series; short version: Tyson is biased since he accepts a scientific rather than a creationist approach to the data.

Some of Thomas’s articles are rewritten with the help of fellow science writer Frank Sherwin to appear in the ICR’s monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts. These pieces are intended for a general audience, and are less “specialized”, but the scientific accuracy tends not to be better.

Diagnosis: Standard fare creationist. He is probably a nice guy, but he is severely delusional as well, and – though we don’t know the readership of those ICR newsletters – he is at least relatively productive.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
786
Points
130
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.

On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It reflects a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.




Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.
A brilliant example of how Thomas approaches science (first, decide what the conclusion is; second, try to find one piece of evidence that fits; third, ignore everything else) can be found here. The topic is a recent article in Geology pointing out that the surface of Venus is relatively young, on the order of a few hundred million years – Thomas’s screed doesn’t link to the original article, for obvious reasons. Instead, he concludes that “secular geologists anticipate that additional measurements may help resolve the vexing Venusian riddles, but satisfying answers may never come without something more substantial than just new data.” Oh, yes. We should instead conclude that Venus is young (Thomas says less than 10,000 years; researchers say the surface of Venus – not the planet, mind – is about 750 million; no real difference), and forget about all those other planets and all that other data.

Here he tries to deal with the Flood, in particular the existence of several flood myths, many of which far older than the Bible. Here, on the other hand, he argues that the genetic afflictions caused by intermarriage is proof that our genes must have been better in the past (Adam and Eve; the Noah bottleneck, and so on). In other words, we are not better off genetically now; hence, evolution is false. Egad! And here is his critique of the new Cosmos series; short version: Tyson is biased since he accepts a scientific rather than a creationist approach to the data.

Some of Thomas’s articles are rewritten with the help of fellow science writer Frank Sherwin to appear in the ICR’s monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts. These pieces are intended for a general audience, and are less “specialized”, but the scientific accuracy tends not to be better.

Diagnosis: Standard fare creationist. He is probably a nice guy, but he is severely delusional as well, and – though we don’t know the readership of those ICR newsletters – he is at least relatively productive.
Of Course ICR does research (The Institute for Creation Research). And it is odd to imagine that while a "Non-Fundamentalist" can with a flip of the hand disregard any contrary investigation done by Christians, it is deemed anti-establishment for knowledgeable Christians to feel the same way towards materialistic, atheistic, anti Creator egotists. Though I imagine that ICR does consider research done by any science professional in order to contemplate where additional investigation needs to head.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,920
Reaction score
5,651
Points
1,830
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.

On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It reflects a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.




Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.
A brilliant example of how Thomas approaches science (first, decide what the conclusion is; second, try to find one piece of evidence that fits; third, ignore everything else) can be found here. The topic is a recent article in Geology pointing out that the surface of Venus is relatively young, on the order of a few hundred million years – Thomas’s screed doesn’t link to the original article, for obvious reasons. Instead, he concludes that “secular geologists anticipate that additional measurements may help resolve the vexing Venusian riddles, but satisfying answers may never come without something more substantial than just new data.” Oh, yes. We should instead conclude that Venus is young (Thomas says less than 10,000 years; researchers say the surface of Venus – not the planet, mind – is about 750 million; no real difference), and forget about all those other planets and all that other data.

Here he tries to deal with the Flood, in particular the existence of several flood myths, many of which far older than the Bible. Here, on the other hand, he argues that the genetic afflictions caused by intermarriage is proof that our genes must have been better in the past (Adam and Eve; the Noah bottleneck, and so on). In other words, we are not better off genetically now; hence, evolution is false. Egad! And here is his critique of the new Cosmos series; short version: Tyson is biased since he accepts a scientific rather than a creationist approach to the data.

Some of Thomas’s articles are rewritten with the help of fellow science writer Frank Sherwin to appear in the ICR’s monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts. These pieces are intended for a general audience, and are less “specialized”, but the scientific accuracy tends not to be better.

Diagnosis: Standard fare creationist. He is probably a nice guy, but he is severely delusional as well, and – though we don’t know the readership of those ICR newsletters – he is at least relatively productive.
Of Course ICR does research (The Institute for Creation Research). And it is odd to imagine that while a "Non-Fundamentalist" can with a flip of the hand disregard any contrary investigation done by Christians, it is deemed anti-establishment for knowledgeable Christians to feel the same way towards materialistic, atheistic, anti Creator egotists. Though I imagine that ICR does consider research done by any science professional in order to contemplate where additional investigation needs to head.
I was hoping you could provide some information on the ''research'' they do. Can you tell us about their research facilities and what research papers they have offered for peer review?

Can you link to any research performed by the ICR that appears in any science journals?

I'm asking because they were denied academic accreditation in Texas.


The Institute for Creation Research, which in 2007 moved from California to Texas, has been seeking accreditation in Texas to award a Master’s degree in science education. In 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board denied ICR’s request for accreditation, and ICR brought federal suit. The National Center for Science Education now reports that ICR’s request to temporarily award the degree while seeking permanent accreditation has been turned down by the court.

ICR’s graduate school is currently accredited by TRACS, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which IIRC was originally founded by a group including Henry Morris, also the founder of ICR, to provide a cloak of faux respectability for institutions like ICR. As NCSE notes, TRACS

… requires candidate institutions to affirm a list of Biblical Foundations, including “the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God’s image.”
See here for more (pdf), especially pp20ff on “Biblical Foundations”. TRACS is not recognized by Texas as an accrediting agency.

In the ruling denying ICR temporary permission to award the degree, the court wrote

“It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information” (p. 12).
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,262
Reaction score
1,182
Points
170
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.

I pointed this out to before and how you go looney tunes when Christian have creation science websites that back up real science and debunk your atheist and science of atheism beliefs.

Just read the About page -- Who We Are which shows you are wrong.

Instead, when we look at the quality of links that you provide, it is none or based on religion of atheism blogs and talkorigins (biased, false, and wrong research, science of atheism articles).

You overall poor track record leads me to ask did you graduate from high school?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,262
Reaction score
1,182
Points
170
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.

On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It reflects a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.




Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.
A brilliant example of how Thomas approaches science (first, decide what the conclusion is; second, try to find one piece of evidence that fits; third, ignore everything else) can be found here. The topic is a recent article in Geology pointing out that the surface of Venus is relatively young, on the order of a few hundred million years – Thomas’s screed doesn’t link to the original article, for obvious reasons. Instead, he concludes that “secular geologists anticipate that additional measurements may help resolve the vexing Venusian riddles, but satisfying answers may never come without something more substantial than just new data.” Oh, yes. We should instead conclude that Venus is young (Thomas says less than 10,000 years; researchers say the surface of Venus – not the planet, mind – is about 750 million; no real difference), and forget about all those other planets and all that other data.

Here he tries to deal with the Flood, in particular the existence of several flood myths, many of which far older than the Bible. Here, on the other hand, he argues that the genetic afflictions caused by intermarriage is proof that our genes must have been better in the past (Adam and Eve; the Noah bottleneck, and so on). In other words, we are not better off genetically now; hence, evolution is false. Egad! And here is his critique of the new Cosmos series; short version: Tyson is biased since he accepts a scientific rather than a creationist approach to the data.

Some of Thomas’s articles are rewritten with the help of fellow science writer Frank Sherwin to appear in the ICR’s monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts. These pieces are intended for a general audience, and are less “specialized”, but the scientific accuracy tends not to be better.

Diagnosis: Standard fare creationist. He is probably a nice guy, but he is severely delusional as well, and – though we don’t know the readership of those ICR newsletters – he is at least relatively productive.
Of Course ICR does research (The Institute for Creation Research). And it is odd to imagine that while a "Non-Fundamentalist" can with a flip of the hand disregard any contrary investigation done by Christians, it is deemed anti-establishment for knowledgeable Christians to feel the same way towards materialistic, atheistic, anti Creator egotists. Though I imagine that ICR does consider research done by any science professional in order to contemplate where additional investigation needs to head.
I was hoping you could provide some information on the ''research'' they do. Can you tell us about their research facilities and what research papers they have offered for peer review?

Can you link to any research performed by the ICR that appears in any science journals?

I'm asking because they were denied academic accreditation in Texas.


The Institute for Creation Research, which in 2007 moved from California to Texas, has been seeking accreditation in Texas to award a Master’s degree in science education. In 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board denied ICR’s request for accreditation, and ICR brought federal suit. The National Center for Science Education now reports that ICR’s request to temporarily award the degree while seeking permanent accreditation has been turned down by the court.

ICR’s graduate school is currently accredited by TRACS, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which IIRC was originally founded by a group including Henry Morris, also the founder of ICR, to provide a cloak of faux respectability for institutions like ICR. As NCSE notes, TRACS

… requires candidate institutions to affirm a list of Biblical Foundations, including “the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God’s image.”
See here for more (pdf), especially pp20ff on “Biblical Foundations”. TRACS is not recognized by Texas as an accrediting agency.

In the ruling denying ICR temporary permission to award the degree, the court wrote

“It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information” (p. 12).

The accreditation process should not be overseen by THECB since it is a secular board and the fact that ICR graduate school is a private Christian one, i.e. it receives no public monies. THECB should only have jurisdiction to rule on public schools. Notice ICR did gain accreditation from TRACS.

This is one of the problems that I have in making young Earth creation science arguments based on the Bible. They will not accept an Earth around 6,000 years old, creation by God, a global flood that mixed up the rock and fossil layers, and the scrambling of languages and how languages originated despite the physical evidence. However, they will accept the false theories of the science of atheism because those are the only ones that can peer reviewed under the science of atheism. It has led to the ultimate hypocrisy in science of -- science theory by consensus and the stealing and changing of science theory by creation scientists when it helps their purpose. It is the God of evolution gaps science.

I think the only way creation science can out on top is in the minds, hearts, morals, and souls of the people. They will have to support it with their dollars. If people turn to atheism, then our humanity is lost and there will be nothing but liars, degenerates, immoral, non-scientific, false science believing in a dangerous and short-lived society and peoples.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,920
Reaction score
5,651
Points
1,830
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.

I pointed this out to before and how you go looney tunes when Christian have creation science websites that back up real science and debunk your atheist and science of atheism beliefs.

Just read the About page -- Who We Are which shows you are wrong.

Instead, when we look at the quality of links that you provide, it is none or based on religion of atheism blogs and talkorigins (biased, false, and wrong research, science of atheism articles).

You overall poor track record leads me to ask did you graduate from high school?
That's all rather frantic.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,920
Reaction score
5,651
Points
1,830
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
This certainly sounds scientific and yet it doesn't agree with your opinion.

On the other hand this will agree with your opinion but doesn't sound scientific. It reflects a premise based on an assumption. It certainly doesn't explain why any radiocarbon should be found at all, nor how does someone judge exactly when something died. Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
I hope you can understand that a non-fundamentalist Christian has every reason to reject the rantings of ICR charlatans.

Let's understand that the ICR does no actual research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. Secondly, as a Christian ministry, there are good reasons to reject the ''findings'' of an organization whose members agree to a ''Statement of Faith'' that predefines their conclusions.




Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.
A brilliant example of how Thomas approaches science (first, decide what the conclusion is; second, try to find one piece of evidence that fits; third, ignore everything else) can be found here. The topic is a recent article in Geology pointing out that the surface of Venus is relatively young, on the order of a few hundred million years – Thomas’s screed doesn’t link to the original article, for obvious reasons. Instead, he concludes that “secular geologists anticipate that additional measurements may help resolve the vexing Venusian riddles, but satisfying answers may never come without something more substantial than just new data.” Oh, yes. We should instead conclude that Venus is young (Thomas says less than 10,000 years; researchers say the surface of Venus – not the planet, mind – is about 750 million; no real difference), and forget about all those other planets and all that other data.

Here he tries to deal with the Flood, in particular the existence of several flood myths, many of which far older than the Bible. Here, on the other hand, he argues that the genetic afflictions caused by intermarriage is proof that our genes must have been better in the past (Adam and Eve; the Noah bottleneck, and so on). In other words, we are not better off genetically now; hence, evolution is false. Egad! And here is his critique of the new Cosmos series; short version: Tyson is biased since he accepts a scientific rather than a creationist approach to the data.

Some of Thomas’s articles are rewritten with the help of fellow science writer Frank Sherwin to appear in the ICR’s monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts. These pieces are intended for a general audience, and are less “specialized”, but the scientific accuracy tends not to be better.

Diagnosis: Standard fare creationist. He is probably a nice guy, but he is severely delusional as well, and – though we don’t know the readership of those ICR newsletters – he is at least relatively productive.
Of Course ICR does research (The Institute for Creation Research). And it is odd to imagine that while a "Non-Fundamentalist" can with a flip of the hand disregard any contrary investigation done by Christians, it is deemed anti-establishment for knowledgeable Christians to feel the same way towards materialistic, atheistic, anti Creator egotists. Though I imagine that ICR does consider research done by any science professional in order to contemplate where additional investigation needs to head.
I was hoping you could provide some information on the ''research'' they do. Can you tell us about their research facilities and what research papers they have offered for peer review?

Can you link to any research performed by the ICR that appears in any science journals?

I'm asking because they were denied academic accreditation in Texas.


The Institute for Creation Research, which in 2007 moved from California to Texas, has been seeking accreditation in Texas to award a Master’s degree in science education. In 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board denied ICR’s request for accreditation, and ICR brought federal suit. The National Center for Science Education now reports that ICR’s request to temporarily award the degree while seeking permanent accreditation has been turned down by the court.

ICR’s graduate school is currently accredited by TRACS, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which IIRC was originally founded by a group including Henry Morris, also the founder of ICR, to provide a cloak of faux respectability for institutions like ICR. As NCSE notes, TRACS

… requires candidate institutions to affirm a list of Biblical Foundations, including “the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God’s image.”
See here for more (pdf), especially pp20ff on “Biblical Foundations”. TRACS is not recognized by Texas as an accrediting agency.

In the ruling denying ICR temporary permission to award the degree, the court wrote

“It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information” (p. 12).

The accreditation process should not be overseen by THECB since it is a secular board and the fact that ICR graduate school is a private Christian one, i.e. it receives no public monies. THECB should only have jurisdiction to rule on public schools. Notice ICR did gain accreditation from TRACS.

This is one of the problems that I have in making young Earth creation science arguments based on the Bible. They will not accept an Earth around 6,000 years old, creation by God, a global flood that mixed up the rock and fossil layers, and the scrambling of languages and how languages originated despite the physical evidence. However, they will accept the false theories of the science of atheism because those are the only ones that can peer reviewed under the science of atheism. It has led to the ultimate hypocrisy in science of -- science theory by consensus and the stealing and changing of science theory by creation scientists when it helps their purpose. It is the God of evolution gaps science.

I think the only way creation science can out on top is in the minds, hearts, morals, and souls of the people. They will have to support it with their dollars. If people turn to atheism, then our humanity is lost and there will be nothing but liars, degenerates, immoral, non-scientific, false science believing in a dangerous and short-lived society and peoples.
Such are the hyper-religious.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
786
Points
130
When science and politics are mixed, the only thing that results is politics…and forced acquiescence.



1.Nothing is more important to Leftists than advancing their ideology. Certainly not science. While they claim to adhere to science, and that science established there rectitude, there are numerous glaring examples that prove that nothing could be further from the truth. And, in fact, this characteristic is one more ‘tie that binds’ the Democrat Party to their predecessors, the Soviet Communists after whom they are modelled.

2. The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. And the Nazis attempt to do exactly the same thing: "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris

Of course they were never able to keep that promise, just as their claims of proof in Darwinian science has proved an empty dream.



3. 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 or global warming.

What do you suppose happened to and scientist who disagreed?




4. Ideology over science: the hallmark of the Left. Like this:

The best recent example… Facebook offers 56 options for your gender. You can use up to 10 of them on your profile. Fifty-six sounds like a lot, but actually a lot of them are variations on a theme — "cisgender man" and "cisgender male," as well as "cis man" and "cis male." In terms of broad categories, there about a dozen.
See Confused by All the New Facebook Genders? Here's What They Mean.



Quite an advantage for the Left, in owning the schools and the media, and being able to use government to 'pay off' those who advance their 'science.'
Here we go again. Another Darwin Evolution denier.
Look lady, or whatever of the myriad of genders they have dreamed up, you are, Science has concluded that Evolution is a FACT. The only thing remaining a "theory" is HOW THE MECHANISM WORKS! Time to drag yourself into the twenty-first century.
Science doesn't "conclude" ---- humans do. If one cannot repeat the process, and one doesn't know how the process works, it's time to "conclude" that such humans are tied to proving their agenda and nothing more.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top