# Evolution....Now a "Fact"???



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....*it is dishonest, and false.*

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




*"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics*

1.  *Redefining words*: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment”  Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

*Theory:* An *assumption* based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

*Fact:* Something* demonstrated* to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the *commonly accepted meanings *of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are *not synonymous*


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to *"the theory of evolution,"* the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


*Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things*, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems *willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.*

a.fact:  ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

_'Your fears have no basis in fact.'_

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information 
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something *demonstrated* to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"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.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, *it's only been a century and a half,* with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> 
> Problem is....*it is dishonest, and false.*
> 
> ...


Evolution is simply changes in species over time, and that's an observable fact.

Natural Selection is the widely accepted theory to explain evolution of living species.

Neither evolution nor the theory of natural selection have ever involved the concept of "complete transmutation into a different species", they address change within species.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Evolution is simply changes in species over time, and that's an observable fact.
> 
> Natural Selection is the widely accepted theory to explain evolution of living species.
> 
> Neither evolution nor the theory of natural selection have ever involved the concept of "complete transmutation into a different species", they address change within species.



Well said, but lost on Postal Chick.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> ...





Nonsense.


'Evolution' has a specific meaning in science, one clearly disposed of  by Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University) in the OP.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

Yeah, what are you going to believe- 

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 2, 2014)

Evolution is absolutely a fact. 

I don't think there is any doubt or dispute within the scientific community at all, nor is there within the general population. 

I think it's fair to say that even the overwhelming majority of Christians accept and understand evolution perfectly well.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, what are you going to believe-
> 
> A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...
> 
> or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.





For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Evolution is absolutely a fact.
> 
> I don't think there is any doubt or dispute within the scientific community at all, nor is there within the general population.
> 
> I think it's fair to say that even the overwhelming majority of Christians accept and understand evolution perfectly well.






"....understand evolution perfectly well."

So...you are not included in that reference?

What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?
> 
> "A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."
> 
> ...



No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.  

But this isn't about science, it's about faith. 

If Evolution is true, the bible is false. 

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?



It's called science. 

By all means present the last peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejected evolution as a concept.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2014)

Gould's discussion reveals that PC wants her owns definitions of theory and fact.

If evolution is true, the Bible is still true.

God transcends Bible and evolution and Political Chic and JoeB.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?
> ...






"But this isn't about science, it's about faith."
True...there is no proof, but you accept it on faith.

First honest thing you've said.


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Do you understand the difference between complete transmutation into a different species, and changes over time within a species?

They are two different things, and Dr Kenyon has never disputed the fact that species change over time, which is what evolution is.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Saigon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?
> ...





Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...





Change within a species is not evolution, and is not related to what Darwin posed as the reason for diversity of life.

It seems you don't understand that.


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Faith has nothing to do with evolution. You don't need faith to believe in things you can see with your own eyes. Natural Selection doesn't involve faith either, because it's a theory. Faith demands unconditional acceptance, and theories, within the scientific method, are never unconditionally accepted as facts.


----------



## ogibillm (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, what are you going to believe-
> ...


there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college.

You misinterpreted what Kenyon said, or believed someone else's misinterpretation, and I'm sure you've done the same with Darwin


----------



## Saigon (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That isn't what evolution is, is it?

I'll ask again - please presenr a scientific paper which rejects evolution. 

I'll tell you now - you won't find one, because it's a proven, undisputed scientific fact.


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, what are you going to believe-
> ...


There millions, probably billions.

But not all in one collection


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Evolution is about the change of species.

It is not about the creation of life.

PC and JoeB want their own definitions.  Won't be permitted.


----------



## deltex1 (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





ogibillm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





Hmmm....I notice you didn't provide said " collection of millions of fossils" proving Darwin's thesis, dolt.

Is that because there isn't any?

In truth, fossil beds such as the Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, show the exact opposite of what Darwin stated.


Now, that I've just proven that I know more about the subject than you do...

...who has credibility?

Not you, offal.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...





"That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college."

Case closed.


----------



## ogibillm (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


No, they dont. 
Evolution is real. Accept the wonder of it and become a happier person


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Examples?

None?


OK...let's expose your ignorance:

1. Evolution...a la Darwin, requires simple organisms that 'evolved' into more and more complex organisms.....the fossil record shows something very different.

2. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.

3. So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?
Clearly, that Darwin's thesis is incorrect.

4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this, itself, argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system called which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'-  A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books  - involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.

So...*.for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record. *

Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.


----------



## ogibillm (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


you realize that evolutionary science didn't stop with darwin, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





No one here is addressing the creation of life.

Your attempt to be relevant is a failure.

Be gone.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...







You have no clue re: Burgess or Chengjiang....

Admit it and begin a new life as an honest person, Offal.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 2, 2014)

It's been quite a week for P Chic - 

First she claimed that Hitler was left-wing, and despite my explaining five times why historians insist he is right wing, she eventually had to admit that she couldn't understand the explanations.

A couple of days later she cited a 1918 UK paper expressing support for a Jewish homeland - apparently not knowing that there was a 1922 paper dismissing the idea of a Jewish homeland. 

And now she is claiming that evolution is not a fact, despite having no scientific material to support her claim. 

Brilliant.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Yeah, you were, and JoeB was following right behind you in the negative.

Neither of you are relevant on what is and is not evolution.


----------



## ogibillm (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


if you're hanging your hat on the cambrian explosion as proof that evolution doesn't exist... well, you're just wrong.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> "But this isn't about science, it's about faith."
> True...there is no proof, but you accept it on faith.
> 
> First honest thing you've said



No, I accept it because there are FOSSILS that prove the case.  Not to mention a bunch of supporting sciences like anatomy, genetics, etc. that prove animal life all came from a common ancestor. 

Don't worry, religious nuts, you still have fear of death to sell your snake oil and get stupid people to vote against their own economic interests.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Well, it seems that the usual suspects are out in force today, attempting to counter my posts, facts, with the usual "is not, is not."


There seems to be no end to the dolts who will accept the theory without proof...and no matter how often I ask for they to back up their support....nada.



4. Of course, Gould isn't the only 'scientist' sick and tired of *waiting for proof*....and simply claiming "case closed."

Remember when Gore said 'the debate is over' re: Global Warming?


There's evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, who wrote "there is the historical question of whether or not evolution has actually occurred. Have living forms actually descended by common ancestry from earlier forms?....I consider the first question to have been resolved into fact..."
Futuyma, " Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," p. 166-171


Dang! There it is again! *"Fact!"*


a. I hate to be a stickler here, but Futuyma's statement is not necessarily in support of Darwin, whose plan requires the simpler forms first: both the Burgess Shale, in Engand, and others, such as the Chengjiang sediments in China, show the very opposite 'evolution.'


b. And, while on the subject of Darwin, even neo-Darwinist Gould couldn't push Darwin's hypothesis.
Here is Gould admitting that there is no gradual move toward complexity:

*"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).



Yikes!!!

He just pulled the rug out from under the idiots in the thread who supported Darwinian evolution!!!



Have a good day.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.




Wait.....were you in a tree?


----------



## AquaAthena (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...





What are you, another Jakal???

You know nothing about the subject...just want to hang out with the adults?


1.. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,_The New Evolutionary Timetable_(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

2. "There are* no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral* insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Life Nature Library

3.  "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument.* There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. *Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution,"_Quarterly Review of Biology,_Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



"...well, you're just Offal."


----------



## deltex1 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.
> ...


Wicker sling hanging from the porch...ya think that was it?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "But this isn't about science, it's about faith."
> ...





"...there are FOSSILS that prove the case."


Bring it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...




Well....that and the Jack Daniels....


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Well, it seems that the usual suspects are out in force today, attempting to counter my posts, facts, with the usual "is not, is not."



When you're living in your own reality, you know, the one where they've locked you in the house all day and make you listen to the Hate Radio, it's kind of hard to talk "facts" with you.  

Obviously arguing that Evolution is only a "Theory" is about as idiotic as arguing gravity is only a theory.  

In the words of the great Issac Asimov -  “Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it seems that the usual suspects are out in force today, attempting to counter my posts, facts, with the usual "is not, is not."
> ...





Hey, liar...*you professed that there is fossil proof of Darwin's ideas....*

I asked you to bring it....

You can't.....

So....back to the original query....are you a liar or just stupid????

'Fess up!


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> "...there are FOSSILS that prove the case."
> 
> 
> Bring it.



You're too lazy to use google? 

The Fossil Fallacy - Scientific American

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as _A. natans_ but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "...there are FOSSILS that prove the case."
> ...





You believe that that constitutes an example of fossil evidence for evolution????

Well....you answered the question: you're stupid.


And, clearly you have no clue as to what _A. natans is.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." 
G.R. Taylor,The Great Evolution Mystery,( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
_


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


>








Your version of a white flag?

Looks like you'd like to change the subject, since I revealed that you were talking through your hat when you claimed that there is fossil evidence for Darwin's theory.


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Well, it seems that the usual suspects are out in force today, attempting to counter my posts, facts, with the usual "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> There seems to be no end to the dolts who will accept the theory without proof...and no matter how often I ask for they to back up their support....nada.
> ...


Evolution is observable changes in species over time.

Natural Selection is the most widely accepted theory to explain evolution.

Theories by nature are not unconditionally accepted as fact from a scientific perspective. If they were, there would be no need for theories, or the scientific method.


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You should probably take a deep breath, and try to gather up some patience.

Reflecting on what got you to reject what 99% of Archeologists and Anthropologists accept, might be beneficial to you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it seems that the usual suspects are out in force today, attempting to counter my posts, facts, with the usual "is not, is not."
> ...





Under discussion is proof,  such as would be required to move an idea from 'theory' to 'fact,' not your personal wish list.

It might help to focus you thoughts if you referred to the dispositive information that I've posted.

Later, around the campfire, you can offer your tales.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...






Now read the following and laminate it for your wallet: *science is based on data, not consensus.*

Don't be afraid to think for yourself, and to demand proof from those trying to influence you.


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I've looked at the information you've posted, and it's been out there for a while. Of course cut-n-pasted in different ways, but still very weak tea.

I know this site is really just supposed to be fun, but if we are implacably opposed, I don't see the point in continuing.

So have a nice Sunday, no hard feelings here. See ya around.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2014)

PC: "You know nothing about the subject...".

Know quite a bit about it, yes, and I know that it is not a litmus test one way or another in accepting the Lord.

I am glad to see you working with the subject; keep it up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."



Horseshit creationist books don't get you much, sister.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Your version of a white flag?
> 
> Looks like you'd like to change the subject, since I revealed that you were talking through your hat when you claimed that there is fossil evidence for Darwin's theory.



No, there's a shitload of evidence, but frankly, you guys need your magic God-Man too badly to comprehend it, so like Toxic Media said, there's really not a lot of point in continuing.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> ...





Proving that you are a stream of sewage has become so simple that it almost isn't fun anymore.

Almost.

But by leaving out the attribution, the source of the quote, you are outright admitting that you are lying.

It was 
*"The Great Evolution Mystery" *
by Gordon Rattray Taylor 


Everything I post in science, is based on science.

You bring up religion, or creationism....to hide the fact that you know even less in this area than you do in history.


These are quotes from reviews of Taylor's book, found at Amazon:

"... written from the perspective of a firm believer in naturalistic evolution, is about that question we all ask at times: "Now come on, could natural selection really have done this or that particular thing?" Mr. Rattray Taylor thinks not, in most cases. He believes that the natural selection of Darwinism and "neo-Darwinism" accounts for variations within species but probably little else.

Rattray Taylor considers it beyond belief that the kind of coordinated mutations which would seem to be necessary for most major evolutionary developments could have arisen randomly in such "short" time periods as they seem to have required.

....this is about as fine a critique of Darwinism as one is likely to ever find: It is scientific, un-polemic, well-argued, offers counter-hypotheses....

He explores several facets of evolution that make a mockery of natural selection and of the neo-Darwinist insistence on steady, gradual change.
Taylor, a Briton, is not bound by the political considerations that strangle evolutionary thought in America.

Mr. Taylor has developed a good argument for the need for a broader view of evolution."


Exactly my perspective.

And,you have been exposed as a fool, again.

A lying fool.



And tomorrow, I'm gonna beat you up in History forum, too.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

Actually, just looking at the titles of this guys books on Amazon, you can tell he's a nut. 

Any asshole who can write a review on Amazon.  And some of them might have even read the book.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, just looking at the titles of this guys books on Amazon, you can tell he's a nut.
> 
> Any asshole who can write a review on Amazon.  And some of them might have even read the book.





You said he was a 'creationist.'

You lied, huh?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




I am still waiting for the OP to address her own question (the one in the thread title).  And someone please explain why these creationists morons continue to quote other discredited creationist morons such as Dean H. Kenyon.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, what are you going to believe-
> ...



You're an idiot.  There most certainly are countless millions of fossils that support the theory of evolution.  Not that you will ever acknowledge this long accepted fact.  But you should REALLY take heed of this advice -

"_As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "_

_- Dr. _Donald Prothero


----------



## Ravi (Nov 2, 2014)

You nutters only believe in evolution when you are getting hysterical over Ebola potentially evolving.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> 
> Problem is....*it is dishonest, and false.*
> 
> ...



Who's surprised. Yet another thread of phony, edited and parsed "quote" that the religious cuts send pastes from creation ministries.

As is typical with PC, she cuts and pastes phony "quotes" without having the intellectual honestly or integrity to verify their accuracy. In every single one of these threads she has opened, I've pointed her lies and fraud. 

The Dean Kenyon "quote" is another of the edited, parsed and phony "quotes" she has dumped into a thread and which has previously been shown to be a fraud.

The poor dear must enjoy being shown to be a fraud and a liar as that has been the case with every one these pointless threads.

Here's the actual data:

Edwards v. Aguillard Dean Kenyon s Affidavit


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 2, 2014)

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

5. Now...back to that 'evolution is a fact' thing.


In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education had an insert placed in biology textbooks:


a. "This textbook discusses evolution, *a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things,* such as plants, animals and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered *as theory, not fact*.....

 "The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. 

Evolution may also refer to* the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. *This process, called macroevolution, *has never been observed and should be considered a theory. *Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."
The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science Anderson Norris


Before some of you folks have a conniption, you can read this at the site as well:


b. " As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that *I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom. *
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were* to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, *and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories."




6. Can you have any disagreement with the statements above? 
They simply ask for an open mind, based on the 'fact' that proof of Darwin's hypothesis remains....evasive.
 I feel that the above disclaimer is* far more honest than folks like:*

. *Eugenie C. Scott is *a physical anthropologist, and* executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc:* ““If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
EBSCOhost

*“Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline...you probably will get beaten.”
Scott, Eugenie C., "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25. *


Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. *Discussing the issue was out of the question.

This advice from the head of the National Center for Science Education, Inc..."organization whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education."
National Center for Science Education - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*



This sound like either 'science' or 'education' to you???

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better just shut up.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter eight.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Taylor was a Lamarkian.  That alone earns him 8 points on the 12 point nutter scale.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> 
> Problem is....*it is dishonest, and false.*
> 
> ...


You ID'iot / Young Earth Creationists are a hoot.

Your entire world revolves around silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> ...





Now, what Sunday would be complete without an attempt to lie from Hollie?

Kenyon said exactly what I said he said.

Here it is from the very link you provided:

"What we do know appears to be more consistent with the view that genomes can only vary within limits corresponding roughly to the level of genera or families, but possibly narrower depending upon the genome (species) in question. 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. All such attempts have ultimately proven fruitless,* although in the case of fruit flies some degree of reproductive isolation of laboratory subpopulations has been achieved (Thoday and Gibson 1962). The field studies reported in the evolutionary journals involve _micro_evolutionary change, about which there is no dispute. In any case, even though we may have strong doubts about macroevolution because of the conclusions we have drawn concerning the origin of life, the issue must be decided on the basis of additional evidence."


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 5. Now...back to that 'evolution is a fact' thing.
> 
> 
> In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education had an insert placed in biology textbooks:
> ...



Ah, Berlinski!

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> ...





I caught you in another lie, huh?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 2, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> God is a THEORY


Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Now dear, shouldn't you be trolling over at Harun Yahya for your usual cut and paste nonsense?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Sidestepping as usual. Your phony "quotes" are so easy to expose as fraud because you cut and paste the same lies repeatedly.

How many more times do you want to be exposed as a fraud and a liar?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Ravi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a FACT
> ...





This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...








It's your quote that you're running from....I took it wholly from the link you provided.


Smashed another custard pie in your face, huh?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're not conversant at all. You're a fraud who cuts and pastes edited, parsed and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya and some of the most notoriously crank fundie zealots.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Kenyon

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.*


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Another of your steaming pant loads of quackery. 

Yet again, you're exposed as a fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually, you're typically confused and befuddled. You confused this forum with the "Those Really Wacky Young Earth Creationists", forum.



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.” 
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Evolution occurs, that is a fact
The only theories relate to how and why

God is at best, a theory. A theory totally unsupported by scientific evidence


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy making you dance and jump through hoops.

I only post the truth.

You can't abide by that.....seems typical of haters like you.


When I do it, I feel like a puppeteer, pulling your strings! And I know exactly what each string is for:


One string is when you tell lies about what I've said or believe


Another string, making you blurt out something called 'Hockum pokem' or close to it


And a string is the where you attack any experts who post other than your hatred of religion....that may be the best one: attack the person who says it, don't deny the truth of what they say.


I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand.

That's my show: I'm Abbot, you're Costello!


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 2, 2014)

Intelligent design does occur

Animals like dogs, cats, cows and chickens are the result of intelligent design by man


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your show is a Young Earth Creationist freak show.


“And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.” 
― Luther Burbank




“Inveterate creationists, then or now, never allow their faith to fall victim to facts.” 
― Robert T. Bakker, _The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction_




“The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?” 
― Judith Hayes




“[N]early every creationist debater will mention the second law of thermodynamics and argue that complex systems like the earth and life cannot evolve, because the second law seems to say that everything in nature is running down and losing energy, not getting more complex. But that's NOT what the second law says; every creationist has heard this but refuses to acknowledge it. The second law _only applies to closed systems_, like a sealed jar of heated gases that gradually cools down and loses energy. But the earth is _not_ a closed system -- it constantly gets new energy from the sun, and this (through photosynthesis) is what powers life and makes it possible for life to become more complex and evolve. It seems odd that the creationists continue to misuse the second law of thermodynamics when they have been corrected over and over again, but the reason is simple: it sounds impressive to their audience with limited science education, and if a snow job works, you stay with it.” 
― Donald R. Prothero, _Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters_


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

*Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]








hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Hey....exactly what I said about you in post #78...
"I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand."


Good little puppet!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> by Laurence Moran
> ...






You dope....I posted that in the OP:

*Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things*, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Oh my.  I can see you're incensed at your "science is a conspiracy" views being dismantled. What's a Harun Yahya groupie to do?



“The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.” 
― Robert A. Heinlein, _Time Enough for Love_


“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” 
― Anonymous, _Holy Bible: King James Version_


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

I've often posted that, *rather than science, Darwinism is a political theory,* and a darling one to the Leftists.

Want an example?



7.  In 2002, Cobb County, Georgia Board of Education, got these stickers placed in biology textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on evolution.* Evolution is a theory, not a fact,* regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."


a. The* ACLU got a judge *to find the sticker unconstitutional.
Got that? 
That's a judge finding that evolution is a fact.

So...turns our it isn't science or religion...it's political!

How often have we seen the Left get a tyrant in black robes to rubber stamp something they couldn't get the people to agree to?






8. The battle is on! In this 2006 book, "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,"by Carl Zimmer, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, Stephen  *Gould wrote the introduction,* in which he backed off a little:

"We should make a distinction, as Darwin explicitly did, between the simple fact of evolution- defined as the genealogical connections among all earthly organism, based on their descent from a common ancestor...*.and theories (like Darwinian natural selection)* that have been proposed to explain the causes of evolutionary change."


Do I detect a degree of separation between Gould and Darwin?
He's admitting that Darwin's is only a theory???



Has to be, since Gould wrote "Sudden appearance. In any local area, *a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;* it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.)."

Seeeeee....just what I've been saying! "...*a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors..."*


Now...... how to combine
a.  "..*. their descent from a common ancestor..." *

with.... "* a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*




_So....if, one of the pillars of Darwinian theory states, all life came from one source....via a series of changes from the simplest to greater and greater complexity....
...then how does a new species "appear all at once, fully formed"????????_

And both came from the same guy???



The only possible explanation is that....once again.....*I am 100% absolutely and totally correct.*
Did you notice I relied on nothing but science and logic to prove my point.

Darwin: bogus.



What's new? Another day, another dollar.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?
> ...





Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, just looking at the titles of this guys books on Amazon, you can tell he's a nut.
> ...



Well, the guy is some kind of crank.  But he's gotten good reviews on Amazon by other cranks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?



No, did you? Only religious nuts are still trying to argue this point.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Now....focus like a laser: only one of us has brought up religion....and brought it up constantly.

Not I.

I have quoted a number of scientists, and can quote numerous others, whose religious perspectives I know not.....
...but they,and I understand the lack of science with regard to Darwinian evolution.

You don't.



That, in and of itself, is not a problem....but it is amusing when you attempt to post on this subject and all you can do is try to tie it to religion.


Of course, the silver lining is that you have no reputation to lose.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now....focus like a laser: only one of us has brought up religion....and brought it up constantly.
> 
> Not I.



No, sweetie, I know it's been an attempt to take your superstition and dress it in a lab coat and call it a science, but it just ain't so.  

Getting quacks who don't even practice in the field to endorse creationism isn't an argument.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now....focus like a laser: only one of us has brought up religion....and brought it up constantly.
> ...





You're not smart enough to know if it 'ain't so.'

Actually, everything I post in this forum is science, and critiques thereof.

Get rid of the hate and you might, finally, get an education.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we _see_ the universe as having been designed just for us?” 
― Michael Shermer, _Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design 




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.” 
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks _




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.” 
― Daniel C. Dennett, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life _


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...






9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered,  the *Scientific Method is the test: *

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




*"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.*

Elegant though it may be...*.it is merely conjecture*....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b.  In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and *“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” *
Before Darwin, the consensus was that* species can vary only within certain limits*; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”_American Scientist_85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology,* there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.* Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that *there is no evidence for evolution...*throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled _“Scant Search for the Maker”_ Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


*"... there is no evidence for evolution..."*


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of *articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation*, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, *Darwinism offers just-so stories *about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space *far removed from biological reality."*


*"...just so stories...."*


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...







"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that *I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link...*.

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 2, 2014)

Explain the observations biologists have made in ring species. If evolution is a sham, why can't descendent populations breed with their original populations? The species don't change if evolution is a lie, so what's the deal?

Surely there's some mined quote you can find that gets to the heart of what's going on with ring species.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Explain the observations biologists have made in ring species. If evolution is a sham, why can't descendent populations breed with their original populations? The species don't change if evolution is a lie, so what's the deal?
> 
> Surely there's some mined quote you can find that gets to the heart of what's going on with ring species.







I believe I'll wait until you avail yourself of enough education in this subject to digest the points made about speciation, post #96.


Your understanding of same is far too elementary.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Actually, no. Your demonstrated habit is to edit, alter and parse the "quotes" you steal from crank fundie websites. 

I was putting the comments from Gould in context. 

You're just dishonest.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Explain the observations biologists have made in ring species. If evolution is a sham, why can't descendent populations breed with their original populations? The species don't change if evolution is a lie, so what's the deal?
> ...



You're befuddled. It's ok to admit that. 

When you're pressed to actually compose a coherent sentence, you're an abysmal failure.


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?
> ...


Bullshit, God said "Let there be light, and there was light", that set the whole process in motion.

Nothing inconsistent with Christianity .


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





It was in context, you imbecile: it introduced the topic, evolution, fact or theory.

So....you don't understand 'context,' either?

Embarrassed, huh?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.” 
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.” 
― Dara Ó Briain


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your phony "quotes" are never in context. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you accept that you are an accomplice to fraud. 

I know, you hate being exposed as a fraud and a liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...






You're simply not equipped to deal with anything I've posted.

But...it is fun kicking you around.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I deal with you fundie cranks by exposing your lies and fraud. 

What's the matter, out of phony "quotes"?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




“A merely symbolic religion does not threaten the ruling regime of materialistic science.” 
― Nancy Pearcey, _Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity_



“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.” 
― Richard Dawkins, _The God Delusion_


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





First of all, I never lie.

And, fraud? What does that mean? Fraudulent about what? I state a point,and prove it...that's hardly fraudulent.

One would conclude that you've been noted for lying and being fraudulent, and thus try to apply it to others.
True?



Let's say that I did get quotes from whatever that source is you keep mumbling about....

....doesn't it ever occur to you that, since they are true and correct, the source is hardly consequential?

Today for example....I've documented the inadequacy of Darwin's theory....from known and reputable scientists...folks who've published in journals.....and all you can do is say they came from Hocus pocus...???

What kind of dope are you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 2, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





So glad you've mentioned Nancy Pearcey.....I read her "Saving Leonardo," one of the most enlightening works ever!

Reading...you should try that.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



First of all, you are a demonstrated fraud. You're also a demonstrated liar.

You really don't understand how comically tragic it is that you and the YEC'ist cabal really believe your pointless conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




“In the Modern Age, there are still those who refuse to contradict a single word of the Bible, even though the Bible contradicts itself.” 
― Jonathan Clements, _Darwin's Notebook: The Life, Times, and Discoveries of Charles Robert Darwin_


----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2014)

*Creationist conference at Michigan State University - The Panda s Thumb*


*Creationist conference at Michigan State University*
By Matt Young on October 27, 2014 8:34 AM | 76 Comments (new)
According to an article in _Science_ today, a creationist group has booked a room for a conference at Michigan State University. _Science_ is more discreet than I have to be, but it appears that they duped a student group into booking a room for them, and they are scheming to hold another conference at the University of Texas at Arlington.

_Science_ writes that the conference, scheduled for November 1 and
called the Origins Summit, is sponsored by Creation Summit, an Oklahoma-based nonprofit Christian group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and was founded to “challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance.” The one-day conference will include eight workshops, according the event’s website, including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler’s worldview, why “the Big Bang is fake,” and why “natural selection is NOT evolution.” Another talk targets the work of MSU biologist Richard Lenski, who has conducted an influential, decades-long study of evolution in bacterial populations.

All that old familiar nonsense.






Following the lecture, there will be a round table discussion regarding the effectiveness of prayer beads and bloody chickens feet in the treatment of illness.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2014)

Evolution and creationism are not litmus tests to be a Christian.

All the rest of the argument is fluff.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 2, 2014)

If the competeing narratives are:

-Evolution's true
 vs 
-Genesis true, evolution's false

I'll comfortable with the evolution's true side.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2014)

Evolution is the true side of the allegory told in Genesis.


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 2, 2014)

I don't think PC is a YEC.

So far, what I have seen(at least on the first page) is a form of basic Skepticism.

Yes--Skepticism on how confident you can assert the validity of the theory of evolution based on the empirical evidence and observations that support it.

Shes not that confident about the evidence. I maybe a bit too confident about the evidence.  But I do get PC's point.

Is it theory that still requires evidence to make it a fact or Is there already enough evidence on the theory to call it a fact?

At least P.C. suggest at least one piece of theoretically obtainable evidence that could bring her over--An experiment that observes the evolutionary process--i.e the changing of one species to another.

That is a pretty tall order.  There is the wee problem to clarify: How would we know  when we got a new species, if we do get a new species?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 2, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




The light was already ignited before the planet was fully formed. The sun formed first and the planetoids through gravity slowly came together. The first billion years was a very firely and violent time as tens of thousands of planetoids and asteroids slammed into our planet.

Yes, there was light, but it was more like hell.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> You're not smart enough to know if it 'ain't so.'
> 
> Actually, everything I post in this forum is science, and critiques thereof.
> 
> Get rid of the hate and you might, finally, get an education.



You don't know what Science is.  

And you live in a strange world where Evolution isn't true, FDR was a communist and there really wasn't genocide against Native Americans.   You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2014)




----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


>



Yep. And dinosaurs were on the Ark for Noah's pleasure cruise. 

Join in on the harmonies...... Wait for it to come around.... Here we go...,

_Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream......._


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 3, 2014)

The fact that you liars have to falsify what I say, post, indicates that I've hit the nerve and inflamed your own doubts about Darwin.

And that is what this is about: Darwin, and the mechanism he posited.

I've proven that it is incorrect, yet you both have some innate fear that it will be shown to be as I've demonstrated.

And that nerve that I hit.....

...can't be cranial.....nothing in there.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> The fact that you liars have to falsify what I say, post, indicates that I've hit the nerve and inflamed your own doubts about Darwin.
> 
> And that is what this is about: Darwin, and the mechanism he posited.
> 
> ...



Your wacky conspiracy theories are a hoot. 

But honestly, if you bumped you head again and damaged that nerve, seek competent medical care.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 3, 2014)

1. How do you explain 14,000 years of lake valve markings? If there was a flood around 4,000 years ago...Wouldn't that show up?

2. Thousands of years of tree rings! There should be a long period where no tree's on the surface of the earth should show growth. All dead.

3. Why are dinosaurs all found on the lower layer of the strata, while humans and our stuff are only found at the very top. Geology proves that our planet is hundreds of millions if not billions of years old. Also think about how slowly the continents move and a river carves out a cannon. Wouldn't happen in a few thousand years....

4. Our understanding of how old stars and the universe is wrong. 


Nothing supports your views.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> The fact that you liars have to falsify what I say, post, indicates that I've hit the nerve and inflamed your own doubts about Darwin.
> 
> And that is what this is about: Darwin, and the mechanism he posited.
> 
> ...



Sweetie, you are the definition of Churchill's description of a fanatic.  She won't change her mind and can't change the subject. 

The only thing that hits a nerve with me is that there are still stupid fucks out there who think the Dinosaurs are gone because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you liars have to falsify what I say, post, indicates that I've hit the nerve and inflamed your own doubts about Darwin.
> ...






I provide truth, and proof.

Your declining to consider and accept speaks more about you than about me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> I provide truth, and proof.
> 
> Your declining to consider and accept speaks more about you than about me.



It tells me I don't believe in superstitious bullshit.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you liars have to falsify what I say, post, indicates that I've hit the nerve and inflamed your own doubts about Darwin.
> ...


In other words, she can't evolve. or at least her brain cannot.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 4, 2014)

Ravi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





And, yet....here I am educating the two of you....

You guys remain the poster equivalents of Windows Vista.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I provide truth, and proof.
> ...





Well....since we both know I've never said anything of the sort...

....you come across as an oaf trying hard to reclaim some remnant of reputation.

The puzzle, of course, is how you could expect to reclaim what you never had.


Try this, a novel approach for you: try the truth.


In the mean time, based on  your skills, I would put you in charge of the valet parking at the hospital emergency room.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Your twoofs and pwoofs are anything but. You provide nothing but "quotes" most often stolen from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Toro (Nov 4, 2014)

science > religion

empiricism > mysticism


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 4, 2014)

Toro said:


> science > religion
> 
> empiricism > mysticism





It seems you've never read what Einstein said on the two subjects.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 4, 2014)

1. How do you explain 14,000 years of lake valve markings? If there was a flood around 4,000 years ago...Wouldn't that show up?

2. Thousands of years of tree rings! There should be a long period where no tree's on the surface of the earth should show growth. All dead.

3. Why are dinosaurs all found on the lower layer of the strata, while humans and our stuff are only found at the very top. Geology proves that our planet is hundreds of millions if not billions of years old. Also think about how slowly the continents move and a river carves out a cannon. Wouldn't happen in a few thousand years....

4. Our understanding of how old stars and the universe is wrong.


Nothing supports your views.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 4, 2014)

Matthew said:


> 1. How do you explain 14,000 years of lake valve markings? If there was a flood around 4,000 years ago...Wouldn't that show up?
> 
> 2. Thousands of years of tree rings! There should be a long period where no tree's on the surface of the earth should show growth. All dead.
> 
> ...





Why the hell should I explain any of that, you moron????


Show how it is linked to anything I've posted.

Prove you know how to read.

Now.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 4, 2014)

Resorting to name calling is declaring you have no case.


----------



## rdean (Nov 4, 2014)

*Evolution....Now a "Fact"???*

*Has been for quite a while.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 4, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Resorting to name calling is declaring you have no case.






So....this serves as an admission that I haven't posted anything even remotely similar to what you've claimed...

...and, you are truly a moron.

I bet you sit on the TV and watch the couch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Try this, a novel approach for you: try the truth.
> 
> In the mean time, based on your skills, I would put you in charge of the valet parking at the hospital emergency room.



Based on your skills... hey, have you ever held down a job ?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2014)

This cartoon sums up Postal Chick perfectly.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Resorting to name calling is declaring you have no case.
> ...


Typical PC behavior. You've run out of "quotes" to cut and paste. As that Is the entirety of your attempt at argument, you're left to stomp your feet and and call people names like a petulant child who has been sent to their room for a timeout.


----------



## LittleNipper (Nov 5, 2014)

rdean said:


> *Evolution....Now a "Fact"???*
> 
> *Has been for quite a while.*


Maybe your child is a monkey's uncle, but not mine. My child knows he was Created. and in the image of God.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 6, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *Evolution....Now a "Fact"???*
> ...



And your child knows this because?  You told him so?  Right.  Does your child have five fingers including an opposable thumb?  Does your child have binocular vision?  Does your child have finger nails and finger prints?  If your child has all of these traits, and I suspect he/she does, then your child, like mine, is a primate, because only primates have these characteristics.  Next.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2014)

And in the meantime, we now have an absolutely wonderful picture of the beginning of the evolution of a star's planetary system.

BBC News - Planet formation captured in photo


----------



## indiajo (Nov 9, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> I don't think PC is a YEC.
> 
> --i.e the changing of one species to another.
> 
> ?



There is no species changeover.
Changes in evolution take place pretty slowly. Slowly means, millenias, or hundreds of millenias, or even longer. The result is maybe just another race, or a new species (means it cannot breed with the old species), but temporarily there will be a vast number of individuals inbetween. And, moreover. the old species does not necessarily vanish.
For example, we see quite a number of various sharks. If you see one, you will reckognize it's a shark.
So they all own the specific characteristics of sharks, which indicates very strongly that they all are descendants of a kind of pre-shark. I am not a shark expert, but i bet there surely is a pretty wide literature about the genetic relations between them, and which ones are closer or more distant cousins to others. But there are no inbetween species. Why? Because they could still mix up with their predecessors, and hence regress in genetical development.
There is a certain borderline between species, from where on the new species cannot mate with the old one anymore. Or inbetweens cannot  beed with themselves (i.e. horse, mule, donkey).
So they simply disappear, and you can see what a missing link is. Because it's gone.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 13, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?* Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
> Problem is....*it is dishonest, and false.*
> And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.
> *"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics*
> ...



You Kwazy Kweationist!
Showing off your RABID IGNORANCE/DISHONESTY Again. 
*Now Dishonestly quote mining even the Dictionary for the NON-Scientific meaning of 'theory'.*
*PoliticalChic, daily LYING-For-Jesus. *

*If one looks at the Link her definition can be found*
*theory - definition of theory by The Free Dictionary*
*One will find ALL the definitions, including the First one, which IS the scientific one.*

*Dishonestly withholding even the Link in the service of Lying for literal Jesus.*

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
Scientific American
By John Rennie - Editor in Chief
June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

*1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. *Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. *

*According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."* No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. 
*So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.*

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution. *
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."..."


Yes you DOPE, Gravity is also 'Only a theory'.
`​


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2014)

PoliticalChic has been playing 'she has her own defintions', screw everybody else.  I quote what she does below in her own words.

_Now, why would a proponent *alter the commonly accepted meaning of words?*Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.
Problem is....*it is dishonest, and false.*_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 13, 2014)

No one, dear, who is Christian, prays, and critically thinks has any doubt that God was using Darwin to help lesser mortals understand how it works.

Darwin makes a case for the origin of species, the far right social con must remember, not the origin of life.

Atheists don't count in this discussion.

And believers must remember this not an issue of salvation.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one, dear, who is Christian, prays, and critically thinks has any doubt that God was using Darwin to help lesser mortals understand how it works.
> 
> Darwin makes a case for the origin of species, the far right social con must remember, not the origin of life.
> 
> ...


Actually, Bunky, I must admit that I am impressed all to hell that you have been designated as the HCIC (Head Christian In Charge), or rather, that you have identified yourself as such to identify who is, and who is not a christian.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 14, 2014)

Pretty much evolution is now so accepted that it has become a *LAW of Science* to many researchers.

A law in science is about as close to fact as you're ever going to get.

Laws of science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Scientific laws:


*summarize* a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
can usually be *formulated mathematically* as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
are strongly supported by *empirical evidence* - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
Works well with top 3 and 4 isn't a solid requirement as "often" doing something doesn't mean it is a rule limiting what is a law.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2014)

The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.

Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 14, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.
> 
> Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory



And for this alone, it can't be a fact as in science the closes thing to a fact is a law.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 14, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.*
> 
> Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory


WHAT?
*1. And where did you get those odds? LINK?
Answers-in-GenePiss?
It's Unforgiveable posting tactics to cite numbers like that without link. 

1a. and how many chances/combos (molecules/conditions/microclimates) did the simplest life have in the 10 Billion Years before it formed 3.5 Billion Years ago?*

*1abc. To formulate 'odds' you need TIME, Content, and Condition (IOW Chances). The OTHER side of an equation.
IOW, winning the lottery may be long 'odds' but NOT if you play twice a week for 10 Billion Years buying thousands of tickets each week. 
DUH*

Detection of a branched alkyl molecule in the interstellar medium iso-propyl cyanide
Journal of Science
26 September 2014
Arnaud Belloche, Robin T. Garrod, Holger S. P. Müller, Karl M. Menten

*The largest noncyclic molecules detected in the interstellar medium (ISM) are ORGANIC with a straight-chain carbon backbone.* We report an interstellar detection of a branched alkyl molecule, iso-propyl cyanide (i-C3H7CN), with an abundance 0.4 times that of its straight-chain structural isomer. This detection suggests that branched carbon-chain molecules may be generally abundant in the ISM. Our astrochemical model indicates that both isomers are produced within or upon dust grain ice mantles through the addition of molecular radicals, albeit via differing reaction pathways. The production of iso-propyl cyanide appears to require the addition of a functional group to a nonterminal carbon in the chain.* Its detection therefore bodes Well for the presence in the ISM of Amino Acids, for which such side-chain structure is a key characteristic.""*

*What were the 'odds' of that?*
Knock off MOST of your Zeros
​3. Guess how many chances life has REGARDLESS of whether it's Left handed or Right handed Amino Acid or amino acid at all?

*[Billions of] Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy*
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sc...ml?src=me&_r=0
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 4, 2013

The known ODDS of something — or someone — living far, far away from Earth Improved Beyond Astronomers’ Boldest Dreams on Monday.

Astronomers reported that *there could be as many as 40 Billion habitable Earth-Size planets in the galaxy, *based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Kepler spacecraft.

*One out of every 5 sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the Size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot, not too cold* — where surface temperatures should be compatible with liquid water, according to a herculean three-year calculation based on data from the Kepler spacecraft by Erik Petigura, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Petigura’s analysis represents a major step toward the main goal of the Kepler mission, which was to measure what fraction of sunlike stars in the galaxy have Earth-size planets. Sometimes called eta-Earth, it is an important factor in the so-called Drake equation used to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe. Mr. Petigura’s paper, published Monday in the journal*P*roceedings of the *N*ational *A*cademy of *S*ciences, puts another smiley face on a cosmos that has gotten increasingly friendly and fecund-looking over the last 20 years.

“It seems that the universe produces Plentiful real estate for life that somehow Resembles life on Earth,” Mr. Petigura said.
[......]

And that's just in Our galaxy.
The numbers get even more dizzying if one Multiplies by the number of galaxies.
[Very roughly] *200 Billion? galaxies x 40 Billion Earth-like Planets = 8 TRILLION earth-like planets.
(not that life necessarily requires an earth-like planet since the elements that makes it up are Pervasive in the Universe.)*


----------



## Grendelyn (Dec 15, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



*There is just a staggering amount of evidence proving evolution.  I may possibly be repeating what might have already been brought up since I, as of yet, haven't read all the messages under this subject but one of the easiest and most powerful ways to explain the truth in evolution is to use the example of a lizards evolving into snakes.  ~ Susan*
Evolution of reptiles - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Politico (Dec 16, 2014)

Evolution has always been a fact.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


PoliticalShit, you are so damned ignorant. Ever hear of the Rhynia Cherts? Or how about this article;

http://home.sandiego.edu/~gmorse/2011BIOL348/Biol348_Website/Discussions/Disc_06_Hassenfuss2008.pdf

From the fossils of Karoo to those of the John Day Formation, we have ample evidence concerning the evolution of one species to another. That you refuse to see this merely reflects the degree of willfull ignorance to which you are dedicated.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 18, 2014)

`







`


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2014)

Richard Dawkins on evolution by natural selection

Richard Dawkins on evolution by natural selection


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *Evolution....Now a "Fact"???*
> ...



You and your child are descended from the same common ancestor as the chimpanzee, that lived about six million years ago.


----------

