Wrong In So Very Many Ways

[alang1216]

Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.

Billionaire George Soros - Democrat, socialist actually
Billionaire John Kerry, by marriage - Democrat and traitor
Billionaire Ted Turner - Democrat former husband of traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda , aren't you proud of her?
Billionaires in Silicon valley - Democrats who censor and are trying to overthrow America
Countless multimillionaires in Hollywood - Far left Democrats, pedophiles, homosexuals, and traitors
Nancy Pelosi - filthy rich Democrat
Michael Bloomberg - filthy rich billionaire Democrat

Yes, lies by Democrats are special, aren't they? Just keep regurgitating them and other sheep will do likewise.

You and PoliticalChic seem to suffer from the same lack of reading comprehension skills.

And another example of
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.

Deflect much?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. We need to point out the importance of speciation….forming a new species…if it cannot be shown to happen….Darwinism has not been proven. That’s the test.

So how did all the species come about? Do you have ANY clue at all?

Any problem with this????



I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.

"...GOP being the party of the rich."


I recognize that you are as dumb as asphalt, but you do serve a purpose.....validating my rules #1 and 2.

Rule #1
Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.

2a. If not for double standards Liberals would have no standards at all.




Now for the facts.
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
View attachment 370190

1. In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
   1. And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
   2. And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
   3. “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
2. This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
3. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
   1. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm

Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:

Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million

Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles




How thrilled the Left is to have morons like you who have never read a book.

I said: Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich
You replied: In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,”

Thank you for the confirmation. Are you so busy reading books that you don't bother to read your own posts?

I put you in your place again.

Why should that be a problem?

You really do have a problem with the English language. You didn't put me in my place, you said I was 100% correct. Thanks for the admission.

Clearly you don't mind being mocked.

Let's leave that determination to readers of our individual posts.

 

[Hollie]

5. We need to point out the importance of speciation….forming a new species…if it cannot be shown to happen….Darwinism has not been proven. That’s the test.

So how did all the species come about? Do you have ANY clue at all?

Any problem with this????



I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

1. Because you lack a science vocabulary, you’re unable to make a distinction between terms, thus your confusion about evolution and speciation.


2. “variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use an example describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the exampleyou use.

3. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

4. Religionism - Wrong In So Very Many Ways

5. Do ask questions before you dump your tedious cut and paste nonsense into these threads.

 

[Taz]

5. We need to point out the importance of speciation….forming a new species…if it cannot be shown to happen….Darwinism has not been proven. That’s the test.

So how did all the species come about? Do you have ANY clue at all?

Any problem with this????



I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

So you change the subject. I win. Again.

 

[esalla]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

A caterpillar does evolve into a butterfly.

How?

Simple as there are multiple meanings to the word evolve

 

[PoliticalChic]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

A caterpillar does evolve into a butterfly.

How?

Simple as there are multiple meanings to the word evolve

For you.

I use the correct one, and it certainly doesn't apply.


Do a little research.

 

[Hollie]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

A caterpillar does evolve into a butterfly.

How?

Simple as there are multiple meanings to the word evolve

For you.

I use the correct one, and it certainly doesn't apply.


Do a little research.

As a home skoolur, you suffer from many inadequacies.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Errors by Darwin's Religious Cult:

1. The best example of evolution is the spotted moth.

Oh please! Some are dark, some are light. These are superficial adaptations, not evolution. They're trivial.

2. The best example of evolution is the Galapagos finch.

Another goose egg. Galapagos finches have slight variations in beaks, adaptations, not evolution.

3. All we are saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequency!

Obviously anyone who says such a thing doesn't understand evolution, which always presumes, preaches and claims that all living animals originated from the first single cell precursor.

4. "Modern evolution.."

Yes, as envisioned by admittedly mediocre student, Charles Darwin in his 1859 book fraught with racism against blacks, which has been used to murder millions through eugenics.

5. "Why do almost all animals have two eyes? Why isn't there any one-eyed creature?"
(My question to a university biology professor.)

His answer: "It's better that way." (THIS is "science" - "it's better that way!")

Well, it would be better if we synthesized our own vitamin C and D but we don't. Why are the dozens of physical constants so elegantly precise, to allow us to be here and enjoy life? Darwinists' answer: "It's better that way."

How cool is that. Scientific simplicity from the atheists who uniquely say "God didit" and put their words into believers' mouths. We never say "God didit." Only they do, and then giggle after pretending we said what they said.

 

[esalla]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

A caterpillar does evolve into a butterfly.

How?

Simple as there are multiple meanings to the word evolve

For you.

I use the correct one, and it certainly doesn't apply.


Do a little research.

Nope because morphing and evolving are synonyms. You do not determine word meanings for anyone except yourself. That said the book was somewhat unclear so it is just like you

 

[esalla]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

A caterpillar does evolve into a butterfly.

How?

Simple as there are multiple meanings to the word evolve

For you.

I use the correct one, and it certainly doesn't apply.


Do a little research.

As a home skoolur, you suffer from many inadequacies.

Still waiting for your proof of observed speciation Hollypoo

 

[ReinyDays]

Where has SARS-CoV-2 been hiding? ... in a Rock Roll band? ... all the evidence shows this taxon evolved within the past 12 months ... the genetic sequence is posted on-line, show me where this isn't a novel form of a common virus ...

 

[Hollie]

Errors by Darwin's Religious Cult:

1. The best example of evolution is the spotted moth.

Oh please! Some are dark, some are light. These are superficial adaptations, not evolution. They're trivial.

2. The best example of evolution is the Galapagos finch.

Another goose egg. Galapagos finches have slight variations in beaks, adaptations, not evolution.

3. All we are saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequency!

Obviously anyone who says such a thing doesn't understand evolution, which always presumes, preaches and claims that all living animals originated from the first single cell precursor.

4. "Modern evolution.."

Yes, as envisioned by admittedly mediocre student, Charles Darwin in his 1859 book fraught with racism against blacks, which has been used to murder millions through eugenics.

5. "Why do almost all animals have two eyes? Why isn't there any one-eyed creature?"
(My question to a university biology professor.)

His answer: "It's better that way." (THIS is "science" - "it's better that way!")

Well, it would be better if we synthesized our own vitamin C and D but we don't. Why are the dozens of physical constants so elegantly precise, to allow us to be here and enjoy life? Darwinists' answer: "It's better that way."

How cool is that. Scientific simplicity from the atheists who uniquely say "God didit" and put their words into believers' mouths. We never say "God didit." Only they do, and then giggle after pretending we said what they said.

Gee, whiz. The angry religionist has launched a cut and paste gee-had.

All the silly talking points that are staples at Answers in Genesis and every other crank creation ministry.

 

[Indeependent]

Flat Earthers

What is Creationism?

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

• International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
  Charles K. Johnson

Isn't is amazing that we have clouds?
Humidity rises, genius.

Flat Earthers are the result of the Holy Roman Empire's philosophy of preventing education in order to control the world.
Jews and Muslims have always been quite educated in the sciences and the arts.

 

[Hollie]

Flat Earthers

What is Creationism?

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

• International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
  Charles K. Johnson

Isn't is amazing that we have clouds?
Humidity rises, genius.

Flat Earthers are the result of the Holy Roman Empire's philosophy of preventing education in order to control the world.
Jews and Muslims have always been quite educated in the sciences and the arts.

Laughing at you, not with you.

Humidity is a measure of water vapor present in the air.

Clouds are condensing water vapor, usually formed around particles of dust in the cooling atmosphere.

Are you the Muslim not so well educated?

 

[Indeependent]

Flat Earthers

What is Creationism?

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

• International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
  Charles K. Johnson

Isn't is amazing that we have clouds?
Humidity rises, genius.

Flat Earthers are the result of the Holy Roman Empire's philosophy of preventing education in order to control the world.
Jews and Muslims have always been quite educated in the sciences and the arts.

Laughing at you, not with you.

Humidity is a measure of water vapor present in the air.

Clouds are condensing water vapor, usually formed around particles of dust in the cooling atmosphere.

Are you the Muslim not so well educated?

Thanks for repeating what I posted.
So much for no firmament of water in the atmosphere.

 

[Hollie]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

Religionism claims magic and supernaturalism as the cause of existence.

Your claimed 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the seas, etc., are full of errors.

Bet ''the gawds did it'' brigade can't find a single supportable but of evidence for their claims.

 

[ReinyDays]

Bet ''the gawds did it'' brigade can't find a single supportable but of evidence for their claims.

You've never loved in your life? ... have you even been loved? ...

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." -- 1 John 4:8

The simple truth is ... in fact ... that simple ...

 

[Marion Morrison]

Religionism - wrong in so many ways.

While religionism under the burqa of Christian fundamentalism is an impediment to learning for home skoolur types, aside from a fringe minority of the science loathing, fear and ignorance addled religious extremists, the anti-science Bible thumpers remain quaint throwbacks.

Why Darwin Was Right and Creationists Are Wrong

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Richard Dawkins. Free Press, 2009. 480 pp., illus. $30.00 (ISBN 9781416594789 cloth).

academic.oup.com

Over the past three decades, biologists and then scientists more generally have become increasingly aware of the threat that creationism, in its many guises, poses not only to science but also to rationalism and evidence-based decisionmaking. The intention of “intelligent design” advocates, as revealed in the “wedge” document (www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf), was to replace evolution in science curricula and to recast the sciences generally in a theological framework (Forrest and Gross 2003). The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is the front line in the defense of science.

All the time archaeologists unearth things that prove the bible true. Meanwhile, you got bupkis.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.
And, there’s more.

Religionism claims magic and supernaturalism as the cause of existence.

Your claimed 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the seas, etc., are full of errors.

Bet ''the gawds did it'' brigade can't find a single supportable but of evidence for their claims.

Evolution claims life miraculously appeared from a primordial soup.
Yet they can replicate it never. True Story.