# Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2012)

1.	A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on facts, which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusionand searched for facts to support same?



2.	Now, take Darwin, and the theory of evolution. We are often told that the reason said theory won the day was that it fit the facts. Not according to historian Neal Gillespie. 

a.	The most extensive research into Darwin's religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University).He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about *why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation.*" Business Profiles and Company Information | ZoomInfo.com

b.	Positivism:  a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. Positivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3.	Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of *Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble: As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. *Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . Raymo,  Skeptics and True Believers, p.138.




4.	Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, *"some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, *and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it" 
Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness." Science, 277:892, August 15.

a. Ironic, isn't it that 'evolution' is a keystone of Liberalism, yet the highest goal of same is 'equality.'

5.	The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that *the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" *(Easterbrook, p. 892). 
Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular sciencenamely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches *the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,. . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate *your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).

a.	Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that *the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" *(pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).




6.	Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that:* It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . *. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .

a.	Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth. ).


Again?

 It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. *Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . .*


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

this "pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view?" 


Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. *To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator*, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. *When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled*. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, *we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world.* Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. *And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.* 
 It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. *Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.* *There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into   one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. *



Literature.org - The Online Literature Library


----------



## del (Nov 15, 2012)

it would be painful to be as stupid as the op


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> this "pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view?"
> 
> 
> Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. *To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator*, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. *When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled*. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, *we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world.* Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. *And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.*
> ...



Gee....how can I still call you 'birdie'???


1.	While I appreciate the post, as it is in Darwin&#8217;s actual words, i*t is spectacularly easy to refute.*



2.	From your post:

 &#8220;*not as special creations,* but as the lineal descendants&#8221;&#8230; &#8220;ordinary *succession by generation has never once been broken,* and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and *mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.&#8221;*

Let me offer the testimony of a more contemporary mind:           

               Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, *Nature*, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, &#8220;How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But *thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined.  *The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.&#8221; (&#8220;Thinking,&#8221; March 29, 1999, p. 206)

a. So&#8230;&#8221;&#8220;not as special creations&#8221;? Wrong.

b. And &#8220;mental endowments will tend to progress.&#8221; Sure isn&#8217;t the case in human abilities, is it?



3. And this: In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), *Alfred Wallace, co-author with Darwin, * outlined his sense that *evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race. *Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are* not explicable *on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include *the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. *Thus, *only human beings* can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is *evolutionary fantasy,* of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses. (From Berlinski&#8217;s &#8220;The Devil&#8217;s Delusion,&#8221; chapter eight.)

a.	And that *takes care of Darwin&#8217;s *&#8220;&#8220;ordinary succession by generation has *never once been broken*,&#8221;

b.	A fib. Watch this: 

David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty *difficulties for evolutionists *the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires *intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."* (&#8220;Evolution," 28:467)



4. There are *no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, *millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

a.	Steven J. Gould said: "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.*" (Natural History, 86:12-16) 

Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?




In summary&#8230;.&#8217;evolution&#8217; is perhaps a political theory&#8230;or a theological one, but certainly not a scientific one.


So....how come a bright bird like you has been fooled this long???


----------



## Ravi (Nov 15, 2012)

Onward to 2016!


----------



## PratchettFan (Nov 15, 2012)

In response to the question posed..... yes.

I won't bother to explain why.  If you haven't figured it out by now you aren't going to.


----------



## Koios (Nov 15, 2012)

> Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?



Yes; the very essence of scientific method, employing what no pseudoscience ever does, which is the most vital aspect of the scientific method: null hypothesis.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2012)

PratchettFan said:


> In response to the question posed..... yes.
> 
> I won't bother to explain why.  If you haven't figured it out by now you aren't going to.





Cant begin to tell you how many times Ive seen, essentially, the very same post!

It always means one of the following:

1.	The poster never got beyond junior high school level in science.but doesnt want anyone to know that.
2.	The poster has a palpable fear that other members of his herd might believe he isnt toeing the party line.
3.	The poster couldnt comprehend the carefully crafted critiques in the OP and my later post.

So that I may address you correctly.which of the above apply?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > this "pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view?"
> ...



strange, i almost get the impression that you did not post anything supporting that darwin's worldview was pessimist, nihilistic, and depressive.

or that he attacked the idea of divine creation, seeing that darwin himself credits a creator.

read more primary sources.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...





Even stranger, I disproved Darwin's specific language in your post.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

and if you really doubt that darwinian theory is science,
then read jonathan weiner's "beak of the finch".


----------



## lovemymutts (Nov 15, 2012)

del said:


> it would be painful to be as stupid as the op



LMAO, I totally agree.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

there have always been cul-de sacs in evolution.

so the fact that your mental endowments don't seem to progress, not even on microscale, is not an argument supporting that darwin's theory of evolution is not science.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> there have always been cul-de sacs in evolution.
> 
> so the fact that your mental endowments don't seem to progress, not even on microscale, is not an argument supporting that darwin's theory of evolution is not science.



Birdie....Darwin's theory is based on faith, as much as theology is. 
My problem with it is the deleterious effects it's had on society.

If folks believe it to be factual, or proven, it gives license to behave as animals, and accept such behavior with a shrug.

1. If science requires testable evidence, Darwin's theory has no such evidence.

a. The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted. (Paul, C.R.C, The Adequacy of the Fossil Record, 1982, p. 75.)




2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.


3. But there is clear evidence of organisms having arrived complete and unique.

a. The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs (Gould, Stephen J., The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239.)




4. The general foundations for the evolution of higher from lower organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis. ~ Emile Zuckerkandl  biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by eluded analysis. Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence?  Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!




5. Further, I can show a relationship of the thinking of Darwinians and Marxists. There is a political reason to advance the theory of evolution.

a.	 The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, .Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." 
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.



We have come full circle. The Church is correctly blamed for the Inquisition....yet you Darwinists, today, burn careers at the stake if fellow scientists disclaim Darwin's theory.


I don't care if you continue to believe it, merely accept that it is faith, not fact.


----------



## Koios (Nov 15, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > there have always been cul-de sacs in evolution.
> ...



You left off: The Earth is flat.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > there have always been cul-de sacs in evolution.
> ...



i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 15, 2012)

del said:


> it would be painful to be as stupid as the op



Then you must live in unbearable agony.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > it would be painful to be as stupid as the op
> ...




how can one live in unbearable agony?

it would be bearable then, no?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 15, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> how can one live in unbearable agony?
> 
> it would be bearable then, no?



Is a troll like del truly alive?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > how can one live in unbearable agony?
> ...



we can further discuss this in the paranormal forum.


----------



## del (Nov 15, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > how can one live in unbearable agony?
> ...



of course i am

i live in gnome, alaska


----------



## del (Nov 15, 2012)

Koios said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



and the sun revolves around it

political chunky claims to have attended columbia as part of some kind of affirmative action program for stupid people.

i have no idea if that's true, but she's certainly qualified


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 15, 2012)

del said:


> of course i am
> 
> i live in gnome, alaska



Gnomes and trolls belong together....

EDIT: Do you think trolls devolved from gnomes?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 15, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > of course i am
> ...



If you have to explain it, it isn't funny. Not that you ever are.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 15, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > of course i am
> ...




gnomes AND trolls were created by GOD 6023 years ago.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ravi said:


> If you have to explain it, it isn't funny. Not that you ever are.



My bad for thinking a wit as dull as del could grasp a simple quip...


----------



## Koios (Nov 15, 2012)

del said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Correct. A fact that the Christian Church had to be drug by the hair before accepting.


----------



## del (Nov 15, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



day 4


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 15, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...





I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

 Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide? 
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles,   in &#8220;Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,&#8221; states that &#8220;most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account&#8221; of evolution. Hmmm&#8230;.doesn&#8217;t seem to help Darwin&#8217;s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Carroll

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 16, 2012)

mr.siiin said:


> our old grand father is adem and his old grand father "shanpasy"



Wait a minute while I get out my Rosetta Stone.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that. 

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 17, 2012)

I think it is about the right moment to have a global warming debate...


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 17, 2012)

lovemymutts said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > it would be painful to be as stupid as the op
> ...



another agreeing here.

she actually posted once about how humans are basically NOT GOOD.

I dont know why some of these religious people think everyone has to share their baseless myths.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 17, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> lovemymutts said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



So we can put you on the global warming denialist side of the ledger.

Thanks.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...




Sometimes it seems that you have a passing acquaintance with science, Rocks.

Then you try to pass off this stuff.

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."
That should be the end of any respect given to this source...and to you.


Go on to read "The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers...What evidence is necessary to show that a change produced in a population of organisms constitutes a speciation event? The answer to this question will depend on which species definition applies to the organisms involved."



Aren't you ashaimed?

BTW....check out the Einstein's that agree with you....should be a clue.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 17, 2012)

PC your whole religion depends on trashing sceince and has for hundereds of years


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...





Prove it, or use the 'Al Gore consensus' argument. 'The debate is over.'

Fossil proof doesn't exist.
What does that tell you?


1. Let's see you deal with this, 
"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


2. Or this, from Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion,"...

Then, there are the computer models of evolution: Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline Computer Life Form Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.

a.	What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more significant than those of Darwin: There is a sucker born every minute.

b.	Darwins theory of evolution is less science and more ideology; it is the creation myth of our time. 


It's your (deluded) belief, Rocks, but not science.



3. And, to continue with the science as religion theme, consider the views of research biochemists: many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been* a near- miracle." *http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/lifeofchao.html

a. A near-miracle is a term of art. It is like a near-miss. A miss, it should be recalled, is as good as a mile.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> PC your whole religion depends on trashing sceince and has for hundereds of years



No, Ms. Truthie....I was trashing you, not science.


But I don't mind teaching you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 6.	Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that:* &#8220;It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . *. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .&#8221;



Horseshit.  There is no evidence that supports creationism.  None.  Those that claim there is are almost never scientists, and the ones that are scientists are not biologists.  Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution.

As for the rest of your screed, even if every last word of it is true, it doesn't undermine the evidence for evolution.  It simply points out that many people find the facts of evolution distressing.  The truth is often distressing.

P.S.  Conservatives don't help their credibility by spewing this ridiculous anti-evolution, anti-science crap.  You come off looking like religious nutburgers.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes.

It meets all the requirements of a scientific theory.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.
> 
> Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.
> 
> As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.




For once I agree with you.  Creationism is quackery.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 6.	Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that:* &#8220;It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . *. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .&#8221;
> ...




"Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution."


OMG...another fearful post avowing evolution....but without producing any evidence.

That's OK....you don't have to put in any effort: simply admit the theory, as is your post...is based on faith.



Wow....you guys sure get testy when your beliefs are found faulty.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Yes.
> 
> It meets all the requirements of a scientific theory.



1. Actually, it doesn't. Not if the definition of science *necessitates evidence, and the ability to be tested, *as is required in the scientific method.


Many elevate science to the level of God, which is their right, but is flawed in that there are *huge gaps in knowledge* that, for the nonbeliever, require *leaps of faith:* scientists, at times, invest in the same kinds of faith as religious people do.


2. Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion: 

I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. *My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.* 
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences



3. But most are not so self-aware, and dont realize *the faith status *of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. 

Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that *their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. *Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and *religion,* who would be quick to point out that *faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.* 
Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.
> ...





That's because you really don't understand modern science.

Tomorrow, I'll write an OP about it...I hope you'll read it.

And, you may feel like answering it....


----------



## Toro (Nov 17, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> I think it is about the right moment to have a global warming debate...



I can assure you the GOP doesn't think it's the right time to have an evolution debate.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



1.  Horse hockey, it does.  Simple example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.  Many more evidence to be had, as well - repeatable, too.

2.  So what?  Science is based on proof, not belief.  Scientists know that.  YOU misunderstand what was said.

3.  Going on about faith?  Science is about proof - more exactly, disproof.  You're being silly, or ignorant, or both about what science is.

4.  And, the theory of evolution is falsifiable - a must-have to be a scientific theory.  You missed that pretty important demarcation between science and pseudo-science, or even myth.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





It is not at all difficult to find leaders in a number of areas related to the issue who admit to a very different view than you have.


1. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park



2. Is a physicist out of place here?
Well, then, as you refer to  "bacteria developing antibiotic resistance," Zuckerkandl might hold more sway.

"Émile Zuckerkandl (born July 4, 1922) is an Austrian-American biologist considered one of the initiators of molecular evolution. He is best known for introducing, with Linus Pauling, the concept of the "molecular clock", which enabled the neutral theory of molecular evolution."
Emile Zuckerkandl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



 &#8220;The general foundations for the *evolution of &#8216;higher&#8217; from &#8216;lower&#8217; organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.&#8221; *~ Emile Zuckerkandl &#8211; biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by &#8216;eluded analysis.&#8217; *Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence?  Hardly.* And this from THE expert himself!

You can read it here: J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470.

a. What then to make of the &#8216;beyond all reasonable doubt&#8217; crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Seems there are noted scientists "Going on about faith."

Are you saying that they are 'silly or ignorant'?
Or, simply, that you are far wiser than they?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Now you're talking about molecules?

OK.  I can do that.  

1.  FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom.  There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not.  Relativity factors in.  To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution".  Solutions are obtained through _ab initio_ calculations requiring pretty powerful computers.  And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals.  And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2.  In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely tied to the theory of evolution - driven by mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith.  Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual.  These are not mutually exclusive characteristics.  Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists, or that they lack any faith in some higher power?  More silliness.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



OK.  So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.


----------



## del (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



i don't understand why this is so difficult for some of these pinheads to understand.

feynmann would choke laughing at the op


----------



## del (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



chunky's next point will, of course, be her first.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 17, 2012)

Toro said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is about the right moment to have a global warming debate...
> ...



Well, no one is using a debate on evolution to shut down the energy industry either...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly.  If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 17, 2012)

As a post script, the Church is cool with the theory of evolution, too.

Pope Benedict has written quite extensively about it when he was a Cardinal.

Ben: According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5&#8211;4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.​
And:  In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation.​

And, the new catechism teaches:  159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....​




Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > In response to the question posed..... yes.
> ...



You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn. You are here to argue, so, there is no point in giving into your pointless charade which everyone can see through. If you were really interested in learning about evolution, you would research it instead of ask people on a political debate forum.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 17, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



 its a fantasy reality unsupported by any evidence. Funny that these charlatans have the audacity to challenge an empirically-baced discipline like evolution because they can't make it fit into their bible. Awww  Poor fundamentalists.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 17, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I knew we would get around to global warming again.


----------



## IanC (Nov 18, 2012)

PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.

Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith. 

Darwin's Idea may or may not be a mature understanding of a recognizable pattern but it is a first step into delving into a larger mystery. Life. life may just be an amazing coincidence, it may be something else, we dont know. but evolution only kicks in _after_ the big first step.

partial knowledge (and its interpretation) can be used for good or evil, positive or negative, but only by people. the knowledge itself is neutral.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



"If they believe in some higher power, good for them....Creationism is inconsistent with reality."

A distinction without a difference.
Clearly, if God exists, i.e., 'some higher power,'....then he is the Creator.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...





"You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn."

This post of yours truly gave me a chuckle.....it is a knee-slapper, if unintentionally so.


I've seen your posts....gone over them carefully with my SEM, in fact.....looking for any hint of intelligence.
To date: none.

The idea of looking toward one of your ability in order "to learn"?????

As I said....a knee-slapper.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 18, 2012)

how christiany of you PC


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

IanC said:


> PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.
> 
> Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith.
> 
> ...




I can go along with that.

I see a problem in this sense: Darwinism is Marxism masquerading as science. 


Perhaps you might have the time to look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> how christiany of you PC





'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. 
John Keats 


Now, have a beautiful Sunday, Ms. Truthie.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 18, 2012)

You are a terrible christain


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2012)

I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.

Now it seems, since the RW has brought the fundamentalists into their fold, they've had to back down from his "survival of the fittest" mantra about why species have come and gone over time.

Politics not only makes for strange bedfellows, it also forces partisans to march in lockstep even to the point where what they believed in the past they must stop believing if it offends their bedfellows.


How weak is that?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2012)

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> God is a THEORY



Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> You are a terrible christain



I notice the astounding consistency: your conclusion in this area is as informed as it is in every one of your posts.


But...your grammar is markedly improved.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

editec said:


> I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.
> 
> Now it seems, since the RW has brought the fundamentalists into their fold, they've had to back down from his "survival of the fittest" mantra about why species have come and gone over time.
> 
> ...



If only you were as informed about the subject, you might hesitate to write about it.
Many, known as scientists, have " had to back down from his "survival of the fittest" mantra."




a.	 Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." 

b.	 *the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design.* According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c.	Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites *biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. *

d.	 He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, *relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. *ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

e. *Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity.* The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.                                                              The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com




On the other hand, I applaud how astute you are to identify Darwinism with politics. 
Have you seen this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html




Now....don't be afraid to consider all possibilities.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


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



There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.


----------



## rdean (Nov 18, 2012)

Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.

Understanding radioactivity didn't stop with Marie Curie.

Understanding communication didn't stop with Alexander Grahme Bell.

It only stands to reason that understanding evolution didn't stop with Darwin.

Yet, how many on the USMB quote Franklin, Curie or Bell?  None I can think of.  

Right wingers are "huh?"  That doesn't even make any sense.  Of course not.  Not to them.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



ACtually, "God" isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, at best.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 18, 2012)

editec said:


> I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.



Ironically, given the thesis of this thread, Marxism was in some respects a leftwing backlash against the excesses of rightwing Social Darwinism.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yeah I don't really care. You're a buffoon. Anyone who could wrote something like the OP clearly is. You obviously think you're very smart, yet, you demonstrate over and over again, quite the opposite.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?  
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwins, *earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose.* Darwins view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this:  The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, .Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." 
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept  our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



An education gone to waste...

Columbia University sheds a collective tear today


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...





Did you know that botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is useful to control your drooling, crossed eyes, and sweaty palms? 

Just tryin to be helpful.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




An admission of defeat???

I just love it when you toss in the white towel, ignore the message,  and go to some attack on the messenger.


Losing every time must really be driving you crazy, huh?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



The typical mistake made by those who dont understand evolution, such as the OP, is they fail to realize that *the Earth is constantly changing*, and life merely responds to that change. As oceans become mountain ranges and rain forests become deserts, if life lacked the ability to adapt to these changes, it would have been extinguished from this planet eons ago. Life and evolution are thus one in the same, life could not exist without evolution. 

Obviously if one attempts to perceive evolution in the context of an immutable Earth, the theory will make no sense.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No, the last gasps of a once great university

Cut and Paste U


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You really are good at not addressing things and instead, ridiculing others to evade a response. I was being truthful when I wrote what I did. Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone. But, instead you invite a discourse where you simply attack those that believe in evolution. It's quite hilarious considering your explanation involves a god, which takes faith to believe. In other words, you have zero evidence for intelligent design/creation. Therefore, you sound absurd, and are absurd for doing this. By the way, there is another thread already on creationism. Why don't you jump on that and help your friends over there. We don't need another one of these pointless threads.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You're not one to speak. You just did this to me. That's quite a short memory you have.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. *"life merely responds to that change."*
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

*Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."*
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
*"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."*

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




I have a deep and abiding affection for the old timer.

You....not so much.


Let me know when you need another slapping-around.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Wait, are you positing that life doesn't respond to geological and climatic change? Of course it does. Who the hell cares what Lamarck said... Since the earth has been changing since its beginning, life is constantly responding to changes in landscape and climate, and this change drives evolution. Geographical location is a major factor in determining the morphology of a creature. I'm not what the fuck you're sniveling about. You just made an ass of yourself, showing everyone that you know shit about evolution, yet you pretend to disbelieve it. You don't. Like all other creatards, you disbelieve a misconception you have of evolution. A strawman.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...





" ridiculing others to evade a response."

OK...I admit that I take the easy way out: I ridicule the easy-to-ridicule.

Know who that is?
Right!!!


----------



## Sallow (Nov 18, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Funny,  coming from one who denies evolution and believes a magic sky created us because of a book written 2,000 years ago. Easy to ridicule? That would be you.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2012)

Shall we examine the motivation of threads by the Cut and Paste Princess?

Is it to engage in serious discussion or is it to expound ridiculous theories and giggle as you receive serious responses and obfuscate using unrelated cut and pastes and convoluted logic. 

Rather than engage in childish logic loops with PC, I prefer to engage her on the tragic waste of time and money that she calls her education


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...





Now....see....folks are gonna believe that you're just my sock puppet....here to embarrass the other side!!

Remember this: "Are you really here to learn? Are you simply curious about evolution? No. If you were, you would research it and leave everyone alone."


Now take notes, dummy: 
The basis for the scientific explanation for evolution is mutations, random, unpredictable change that most commonly are fatal to an organism.


Lamarck was incorrect, his theory actually used in Russian agriculture until the 1950's or so....

...every one realizes that the changes are not due to perceived necessity by an organism.

Everyone except dunces like you and Claypot.


Thank me.


----------



## del (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





chunky gets dopier by the minute.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Shall we examine the motivation of threads by the Cut and Paste Princess?
> 
> Is it to engage in serious discussion or is it to expound ridiculous theories and giggle as you receive serious responses and obfuscate using unrelated cut and pastes and convoluted logic.
> 
> Rather than engage in childish logic loops with PC, I prefer to engage her on the tragic waste of time and money that she calls her education




OK....now you've gone too darn far: 

I'm putting you on double secret probation....


But...I will play your music for you:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP34u6rdscs]Howlin' Wolf - Smoke Stack Lightning - YouTube[/ame]



Feel better now?


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




You know nothing. That much is clear. Thank you for making that so easy to understand. That's about all I have to thank you for.

One major source for selective pressure is environment. This includes geology and climate, which are ever-changing. Instead of referring needlessly to Lamark, which is basically a non-sequitur, try to actually refute the point, which you haven't.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Shall we examine the motivation of threads by the Cut and Paste Princess?



Please phrase your answer in the form of a numbered list.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You gave me a link to another discussion thread on yahoo, as if this is a credible source and is supposed to demonstrate a single thing?!! What is wrong with your head?

No one here is arguing for Lamarckian evolution, you dumbfuck. So stop mentioning his name. It doesn't mean he got everything wrong, and I don't know what his ideas have to do with the FACT that environmental factors influence evolution. To say otherwise shows complete ignorance to evolution.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 18, 2012)

Science is an empirically based method which can neither prove, nor disprove, the tenets of politics, religion, or social mores. It is a unique epistimology.

Someone write that down before I forget it...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




I explain things to younow see if you can understand this.for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well. 

Do you realize, when you post, amoebas slap their foreheads with their pseudopods!!!


And they'd roll their eyes if they had any!!


When you fill out your tax returns, under occupation, be sure to write Jay Leno punch line.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.
> ...



Social Darwinism was actually the creation of left-wing progressives, you dumbshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> "Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution."
> 
> OMG...another fearful post avowing evolution....but without producing any evidence.
> 
> ...



Many books have been written on the subject.  I'm not going to regurgitate all the thousands upon thousands of pages written demonstrating the case for evolution.

Where's your evidence for creationism?    Don't go quoting the Bible unless you want everyone to laugh.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Of course not.

But this tangential "argument" of yours still does nothing to support your silly question about Darwinian theory being scientific.

It is (explained earlier by several).

Creationism is not scientific for the simple fact that it is not falsifiable - a requirement for a scientific theory.  Sure, creationism is a theory, but certainly not a scientific one.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


A lovely _non sequitur_ you've made there.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 18, 2012)

del said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Thanks.

I was trying to think of a simple argument to that, but I'm just going to stick with dearth of evidence does not equate to disproof.  Talk about logic....

In science, what we know is far, far less than what we do know.  It's the nature of the beast, but our methods are fruitful and as long as we actually know what a scientific theory actually is, we don't waste our time on utter silliness.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution."
> ...





Why would I be concerned about anyone- or everyone- laughing.

Is that what you are afraid of?


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Right... If I were a psychiatrist, at this point, I would say: I think I see the problem! You are living in a solipsistic fantasy world where assertions are equivalent to knowledge and there is no uncertainty. 

Try to actually logically connect your responses to what you are responding to, instead committing another red herring and attempting (and I do mean attempt) to mock those who don't follow you into oblivion.

You're obvious flaw is that, because Lamarckian evolution is false, you believe that any ideas in Evolution as we KNOW it today that are were also contained in Lamarckian Evolution makes those ideas in Darwinian Evolution false. This is illogical and untenable.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.
> ...


 
Holy shit your crazy. I think you read too much politics and think everything has this ulterior motive. The only aim in science is the pursuit of truth which is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable objectively. Evolution has nothing to do with Marxism, at all, whatsoever. Marxism is a political ideology and philosophy. Evolution is a simple explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Please expound how these two are at all connected. Otherwise, stop making such obtuse and asinine claims.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



He never said anything about God existing.  He just said if it makes people feel better to believe in God, then good for them.

There is no creator of the universe.  The idea is a contradiction.  The universe means everything that exists.  If God exists, then he is part of the universe.  How could he create something he is part of?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 19, 2012)




----------



## IanC (Nov 19, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I think newpolitics has a point. Marxism uses evolution as a tool to further its cause, evolution has no use or need for marxism.

I think mankind has a biological drive to create theism, just as it has a biological drive to acquire and use language. I am not sure what its purpose is but then it is always difficult to derive the proper viewpoint from within the system.


----------



## rdean (Nov 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.
> 
> Understanding radioactivity didn't stop with Marie Curie.
> 
> ...



Threads like this one make it clear why Mitt Romney wanted to bring immigrants with degrees here to this country.  Poor Mitt understood that his base was unteachable.


----------



## editec (Nov 19, 2012)

I find it more than somewhat hilarious that so many people who do not believe in Darwinist THEORY as it related to cosmology and zooology are 100% ON BOARD with the theory of SOCIAL DARWINSIM as it relates to anthropolgy and sociology.


To these hateful morons, survival of the fittest is a perfectly plausible theory as it relates to mankind's interactions with himself but entirely NON SCIENTIFIC when it comes to the LAW OF THE JUNGLE.

Seriously, how confused does on have to be to hold those two divergent POVs?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



One more time?

Sure.

Your wrote in support of Lamarck.


Dolt.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"Holy s___ your crazy."


That should be "Holy s___ you're crazy."

Dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




1. "There is no creator of the universe."

Where did the material that has become the universe come from?

If the provenance of said material is of no concern, then why expend any effort in discovering laws of how said material behaves?


2. "If God exists, then he is part of the universe."

Really, we should begin any argument with the definition of terms....and in no source that I can find is God defined as matter.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




 The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, .Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." 
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.




While there were theories of evolution before Darwins, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. *Darwins view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,'* rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.
> ...



So.....did you want to compare education backgrounds?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

editec said:


> I find it more than somewhat hilarious that so many people who do not believe in Darwinist THEORY as it related to cosmology and zooology are 100% ON BOARD with the theory of SOCIAL DARWINSIM as it relates to anthropolgy and sociology.
> 
> 
> To these hateful morons, survival of the fittest is a perfectly plausible theory as it relates to mankind's interactions with himself but entirely NON SCIENTIFIC when it comes to the LAW OF THE JUNGLE.
> ...





And, speaking of "these hateful morons,"....

"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxisteven though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marxs materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real."
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"



And, because of my hopes for you, consider the following:

  [The] relationship [between communism and Nazism] may never be fully understood. But the Russian Red Terror, in its emphasis on the elimination of entire classes of peoples, in its description of opponents as "vermin" to be exterminated, does seem like a precursor of the German concentration camps. Moreover, Nazism profited greatly not only from Lenin's and Stalin's Gulag system--Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, solicited reports about the operations of Soviet camps--but also from Bolshevism itself, which served as both a whipping boy and, at times, a political idea that could be collaborated with. The two ideologies validated each other.

After World War II, the prestige of the Soviet Union was at its height. The country had fought on the side of the democracies, *U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow. *In Europe, communists made a comeback in France, Italy and Germany with the flowering of the myth that communists were merely heroic anti-fascist freedom fighters. Thus* the gruesome Soviet record *was suppressed.

After the halo wore off the Soviet Union, China emerged as a new beacon for credulous Westerners. .Mr. Margolin writes that "one myth was common in the West: the idea that China was far from being a model democracy, but that at least Mao had managed to give a bowl of rice to every Chinese person." In fact, nothing was further than the truth.* Mao, like Stalin deliberately engineered a famine that killed untold millions.*
WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999


Now....this is the philosophy you endorse?
Again....what was that about 'hateful morons'?


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 19, 2012)

your a terrible christian


----------



## rdean (Nov 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I would never argue with some who has a "BS".

A bachelors in "Bible Study".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> your a terrible christian



Amen.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




Wise to answer thus.


----------



## konradv (Nov 19, 2012)

Is right wing theory even thought?


----------



## rdean (Nov 19, 2012)

konradv said:


> Is right wing theory even thought?



Ah, another "theory".

The short answer is "yes".  Repeating what you are told to repeat requires at least minimum thought, simply to remember what it is you have been told to "repeat".  So yes, right wing "theory" is thought.  It's just the least possible amount of "thought".


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 19, 2012)

no longer is it a choice, now according to some we are preprogrammed.


----------



## rdean (Nov 19, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> no longer is it a choice, now according to some we are preprogrammed.



"Preprogrammed" would suggest before birth.  That is unlikely.

Programmed is more like it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2012)

Lead article for GSA Today. The Evolution of Creationism. Interesting read. One wonders how some can be so blind to reality.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 20, 2012)

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity.   Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting. 

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Natural-Selection-Christopher-Williams/dp/0691026157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time'  Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic.  Caption it.  BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests






"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in Gods eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity.   Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.
> 
> Evolutionary Theory
> 
> ...




1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. Not so long ago, Singer wrote in one essay, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But  not every taboo has crumbled.

 In the essay, titled Heavy Petting, Singer concluded that sex across the species barrier, while not normal, ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings. Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

 In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

 In his 1993 essay Taking Life, Singer, in a section called Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia, wrote that killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.

 Very often it is not wrong at all, he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

 Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths. 
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with? 
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2012)

1.  Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.

2. Other theories that are more acceptable? Name them and who they are accepted by. I know of no one that has successfully challenged the present theory of evolution.

3. What the fuck? Literally? What the hell does this crap have to do with anything but tillitating people like you? It has zero to do with evolutionary science, the fact that you posted this shit demonstrates that you have no point other than idiocy.


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2012)

peter singer is a piece of garbage who says it's ok to lie in furtherance of your agenda and an animal rights' loon.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity.   Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.
> ...



I like you, PC.  But you are soooooooo off base on this that it is cringeworthy.

I would suggest that before you start discussing scientific theory, that you find out the distinct characteristics that make a theory a scientific one.  Nothing touchy-feely or subjective about it - crystal clear characteristics

Start with Karl Popper's _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_.  Stanford has an excellent condensed version.  Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## rdean (Nov 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity.   Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.
> ...



You are trying so hard to twist this into something is isn't. That's why you are an awful person.  You really are awful.  

He isn't a "science adviser" like, how does fusion work?  His advice is on the "ethics" of science.   This entire generation of Republicans have zero ethics.  People who believe in "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" are not ethical people.  Many times, they are evil because of their lack of conscience and morals.  You know what I'm talking about.  I'm not attacking you when I say you are one of those people.  I truly believe you have no ethics.  What you write proves it beyond a doubt.

One of Singer's greatest essays,  why some people live in wealth and abundance while others are starving and why that is morally indefensible.  This is in direct opposition to Republican's "Feed the poor and they will breed" and cutting school lunches.  Singer gives a huge portion of his salary to fighting hunger and to UNICEF.  He puts his money where his mouth is and you malign him?  Really?

Just because you can grow a third eye on the back of someone's head, would it be ethical do to that?

And why does ethics come up with abortion?  Try to figure that one out.

You really outdid yourself this time.  At least you have a "trade".  And for that, you make "crumpled singles".


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 20, 2012)

jillian said:


> peter singer is a piece of garbage who says it's ok to lie in furtherance of your agenda and an animal rights' loon.




Your right, those animals rights loons are nuts to care about the interminable suffering of animals inside our own farming systems...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzrRmB40l00]From Farm To Fridge - YouTube[/ame]

Fuck you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

jillian said:


> peter singer is a piece of garbage who says it's ok to lie in furtherance of your agenda and an animal rights' loon.



....selected by Barack Obama as worthy of a position in his administration.


Should tell you all you need to know.

Cass Sunstein, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, suggested that animals be allowed to sue people.


Still better than the Illinois State Senator who would not support legislation that allowed infants born alive, as a result of an abortion that had gone wrong, be given medical aid and not left to died.
His name is Barack Obama.



Know anyone who would vote for any of these three?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...





Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

*Human babies a*re not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence *their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.*


*Singer advocates the killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. *The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers &#8220;disabilities&#8221;. ... &#8220;We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed.&#8221; 

What counts as a &#8220;severe disability&#8221; for Singer? *He intentionally leaves the term vague *to allow for a broad range of parental discretion,...
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


&#8220;*The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal *at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.&#8221;Singer says....

During an interview, Singer was asked, *&#8220;Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?&#8221;*

His answer: &#8220;No.&#8221;

He also reaffirmed that i*t would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds *with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be &#8220;raised as soon as possible after birth.&#8221;
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries


And this is the thinking inherent in ObamaCare, as well. It is the basis for 'rationing healthcare,' an idea supported by Peter Singer and Barack Obama.



One might believe that you are vicious and sociopathic....

....but I know you are not. You are just very, very stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



Hey....neat!

And while I'm reviewing that, you might see if you can grasp the significance of these:


1. Alfred Wallace, co-author of Darwin's opus, in an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), wrote the following: Wallace observes in this essay, "Certain of our "physical characteristics are *not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- *

2. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. *Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.*" (&#8220;Evolution, 28:467)

3. 	"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much --* ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time*. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

4. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles,   in &#8220;Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,&#8221; states that &#8220;*most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account&#8221; of evolution*. 


5.Steven J. Gould said: "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.*" (Natural History, 86:12-16) 


Alfred Wallace, David Kitts, the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Robert Carroll, Steven J. Gould.....

...did you notice that none of 'em say '"PoliticalChic" wrote this.'?


Did you want to label them as "cringeworthy"?

Or...you can simply ignore them and pretend that supports your view of science.


I like you too....but you seem to, at least in this area, choose to ignore the flaws in Darwinian evolution, that should more correctly assign it to the area of political philosophy than to science.
Trotsy understood it as such.

And, that behavior, is why I contend that the acceptance is more based on faith than empirical data.


Of course, even folks with your belief agree, I assume, agree that the theory doesn't comport with the scientific method as far as being based on reproducible experimentation.
True?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



PC, yeah...you are making me cringe.

You have zero understanding of what a scientific theory is.  

Nothing you posted falsifies the theory of evolution.  What you did quote, were valid scientific questions - they drive the furtherance of knowledge.

Scientific theory without valid scientific questions ends inquiry...ends the pursuit of knowledge.

Questions are good.  But they do nothing to disprove a scientific theory.


You should read what a scientific theory actually is, but I understand your resistance to do so.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




"PC, yeah...you are making me cringe."

And...does that apply to Gould and the others quoted?

I usually assume that folks who respond to the messenger do so because they have no logical way to answer the message.

I would be sad if that were true of you.


"You should read what a scientific theory actually is,..."
Having read the thread, you know that I am fully aware of the above....but it is another kind of attack on the messenger.
Weak.

	 The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, .Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 21, 2012)

I never thought I would agree with Si Modo, hell has frozen over and cows now fly.

"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."  Karl Popper


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> 1.  Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.
> 
> 2. Other theories that are more acceptable? Name them and who they are accepted by. I know of no one that has successfully challenged the present theory of evolution.
> 
> 3. What the fuck? Literally? What the hell does this crap have to do with anything but tillitating people like you? It has zero to do with evolutionary science, the fact that you posted this shit demonstrates that you have no point other than idiocy.



  Herbert Spencer was the most influential popularizer of evolution in 19th century America. Actually, it was Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in naturebut in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards


As for Singer? 
He is the logical extension of Darwinian thought....after all, if we are simply another animal, than whatever animals do, and whatever happens to animals, should be true for human beings.


Do you have any doubt that, if mice are 'sacrificed' for scientific study, Singer et al would agree to the same treatment for humans???


See...and I mean this in the kindest way, you are unable to comprehend the larger view. Marx, Darwin, socialism, the end to American sovereignty, and lots of other things, are all tied together.

I even believe that the dumbing-down of our system of of education is tied in with same.


And, sadly, it's working. You are the proof.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It is blatantly obvious that you are not.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



What's obvious is that you have some fear that your beliefs are weak.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on facts, which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusionand searched for facts to support same?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're easily one of the 10 dumbest posters on here.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What beliefs do you assume I have?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 21, 2012)

midcan5 said:


> I never thought I would agree with Si Modo, hell has frozen over and cows now fly.
> 
> "Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper
> 
> "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."  Karl Popper



Or, in my less-than-eloquent saying:  "The more I know, the more I know that I don't know"


Of course, no one beats Rummy (and he makes perfect sense to me) 

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."  .... Donald Rumsfeld


----------



## PratchettFan (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > In response to the question posed..... yes.
> ...



None of the above.  I can't tell you how many times I read this type of nonsense which demonstrates a clear failure to understand how science works or even what Darwin was talking about.  If your world view is going to be driven by the fear that what you believe might not be absolute fact, then discussion is pointless.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.
> ...



Damn. Lady, you are more than just stupid.

Darwin's work was based on natural selection. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the meanest and toothiest. It means survival of organisms most fitted to environment they exist in. And that can be achieved in many ways.

As for your quote from Stephen Jay Gould, that shows how truly ignorant and ill read you truly are. I, and anyone else interested in evolutionary biology, have read several books of his wonderful articles. That you take that quote out of context and try to make it mean something it does not simply shows the depth of your disconnect with reality.

As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion, and demonstrates how you wish to politisize the most robust of the Scientific Theories.

Lady, you are a fool. Big words and no thought at all behind them.

Evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life exists on this planet.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





"As for your assertations concerning Singer, that is your opinion,..."

Did you not see this in an earlier post?


"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having *sex with animals. *Not so long ago, Singer wrote in one essay, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But  not every taboo has crumbled.

In the essay, titled Heavy Petting, Singer concluded that sex across the species barrier, while not normal, ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings. Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

*In addition to supporting bestiality *and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also *advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants *on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay Taking Life, Singer, in a section called *Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,* wrote that killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.

Very often it is not wrong at all, he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths. 


Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

*Human babies* are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Singer advocates the* killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. *The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers disabilities. ... We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed. 

What counts as a severe disability for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion,...
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


*The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal *at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.Singer says....

During an interview, Singer was asked, *Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?

His answer: No.*

He also reaffirmed that *it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds *with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be raised as soon as possible after birth.
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries


----------



## rdean (Nov 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You really are one of the most disgusting people ever.  A true piece of shit.  You use some right wingnut website as "proof" to back up sickening assertions.  Singer turns over a huge portion of his salary to organizations that help feed the poor.  If he believed as you said, why would he do that?  It wouldn't be in character. 

But you, vile, disgusting, evil.  Satan is your God.  And you do his work well.  Maligning a good person to further your master's evil agenda.  

Besides winning "Miss Petri Dish of 1998", you have never achieved anything of value in your entire life.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.	A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on facts, which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusionand searched for facts to support same?
> ...



When you were seven or eight years old, how did you deal with those who said something counter to your opinion?

"You're easily one of the 10 dumbest ...."


That might even have been clever for a seven or eight year old.


Imagine: what ever your current age......

.....you haven't advanced intellectually beyond that!!!

Wow!!

You couldnt be a spell-checker at an M & M factory.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 21, 2012)

You know, PC?  You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science.  You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 21, 2012)

AGW Observer


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2012)

Si modo said:


> You know, PC?  You are politicizing science with this crap.
> 
> I hate that.
> 
> ...




There is no principle involved, simply your petulance.

The neg you sent reveals both the weakness of your argument and a weakness in your character.
I never neg those I disagree with, in fact, I often sent a positive rep for a good fight.

Based on the way you've behaved, science is your religion, and I've questioned it. The horror.

You didn't prove that you were correct....merely that you were petty.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, and think about what I've said.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2012)

Si modo said:


> You know, PC?  You are politicizing science with this crap.
> 
> I hate that.
> 
> ...




BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Every quote I've provided of  Peter Singer's is attributed correctly.


Dunce.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2012)

Funny, PC, I have never read any of Singer's works on evolutionary biology. But have read the works of Ernst Myer and Stephen Jay Gould. Perhaps you should expand your reading to actual recognized authorities on the subject.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Funny, PC, I have never read any of Singer's works on evolutionary biology. But have read the works of Ernst Myer and Stephen Jay Gould. Perhaps you should expand your reading to actual recognized authorities on the subject.



I sure would like to see some of you folks expand your views of reality.....

Lots of aspects of the world are connected in ways you seem not to understand.

But...that's for tomorrow.

Today....have a great Turkey Day....and don't over-do the stuffing!!!


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 22, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > You know, PC?  You are politicizing science with this crap.
> ...



So you're implying that AGW is inherently political. That somehow,  the evidence doesn't support AGW, even though a vast majority of the scientific community believes it does. Yet, you know better... interesting.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





" Yet, you know better... interesting."
Yup!.
See...perhaps you are capable of learning!!

1.	The very paucity of evidence to support* the terrifying global alarmism,* the environmental Armageddon, is the best evidence for the lack of rationality, and, by the same token, *the supremacy of ideology, in the scientific community.*

a.	In a 2003 poll conducted by environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany, *about a quarter of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment *of the effects of greenhouse gases. About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers. Are climate change investors living in a fool&#8217;s paradise?

b.	Most people do not realize that *Earthly temperatures have been appreciably higher than today many times in the past, and also lower. *As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was as much as 3 degrees Celsius warmer than now. Eleven thousand five hundred years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long Younger Dryas cold episode, temperatures rose about 5° C in a single decade  that is nearly 100 times faster than the 20th centurys 0.6° C warming that climate campaigners believe is a precursor to catastrophic global warming. Ibid.



2. What happened to the truth?

a.	*In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology,* also known as the greater truth of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. Post-modern science starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor. 

b.	 Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: this particular mode of scientific activity has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science -* who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - *as on the facts of science. Self-evidently dangerous *climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth *seeking, scientists - and politicians - must *trade (normal) truth for influence.* If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. *Climate change is too important to be left to scientists -* least of all the normal ones.  The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.




&#61612; So *global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. I*nstead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c.	The leading proponents of post-normal science, PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, facts and values are unified by replacing truth by quality.  http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

&#61612;Thus, we have* a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.*

d.	*Ideology represents the power over truth. *The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also
Melanie Philips, "The World Turned Upside-Down"



Political power and global governance....not science.

Get it?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > You know, PC?  You are politicizing science with this crap.
> ...


And I neg him when HE politicizes science, too.

Duh.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



'Duh' is right.


To do that for a difference of opinion???



You may believe that is in support of science....but in reality is is merely dogmatic.

You understand what dogmatic mean, don't you? 'forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable.'
dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As in, punishment if you dare to disagree.

Disappointing.


----------



## konradv (Nov 23, 2012)

AGW alarmism may be political, but the basis of the theory isn't, as it was postulated long before the political wrangling started.  If its become overly politicized that would seem to be the fault of the deniers, since they often either ignore the science or just cherry-pick their favorite parts to "prove" there's some sort of political deviancy inherent in the other side, even when nothing but basic scientific facts are being discussed.  For example, I could start a thread showing how in the lab bubbling water with CO2 will lower the pH and inevitably someone will say I'm out to destroy capitalism.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Politicizing science has nothing to do with an opinion.  This is exactly why I say you are clueless about what science is.

Politicizing science is a deliberate act by those who do not care about the integrity of science.  In addition (and as you obviously cannot be bothered to read), the logic of scientific discovery and the scientific method eliminate politicization.  But that is when SCIENCE is done by SCIENTISTS, and not activists.

You and too many others soil it.  You want science not to be politicized?  Then it's easy.  Stop doing it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




Of course, that is not true.

From post #161 above ( as you obviously cannot be bothered to read):

2. What happened to the truth?

a.	In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the &#8216;greater truth&#8217; of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. &#8216;Post-modern science&#8217; starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor. 

b.	 *Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences *at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: &#8220;&#8230;this particular mode of scientific activity&#8230; has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science&#8230;. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,&#8230; scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity&#8230;. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.&#8221; The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.





The following, as well, eviscerates your self-serving post:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor?  Obviously it is easier to* politicize fields like law or history, but even science?*

Here, *from the New York Times *is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation&#8230;and, yes, it even works* on scientists.*

*It seems that some paleontologists doubted the &#8220;widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.&#8221; *

&#8220;[At] the annual meeting of the *Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists* this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so *polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.&#8221;*

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

&#8220;According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.&#8221;
Does &#8216;dissenters&#8217; sound a bit like &#8216;deniers&#8217;?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So,* if one doesn&#8217;t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?*
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like &#8216;militarists&#8217;?  Militarists?
Read the article @ http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/29/s...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/29/s...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all


Have I proven the point?

I'm satisfied to leave it to readers of our respective posts.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


WHAT is not true?

(You'll likely avoid answering that question, too, just like you did the last question I asked you.)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





What is not true is your contention that politicizing of science is not done by scientists.

In fact, the behavior that you suggest that you despise, "dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers," is exactly what you do with neg reps.

Forming a hypothesis is the basis of the scientific method.
Attacking the person who states one is hardly scientific.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I never contended that.


YOU are, though.  Stop.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2012)

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Stop what?

Disagreeing with you?


----------



## Matrixx8 (Nov 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on facts, which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusionand searched for facts to support same?


I agree but, to start, allow me to congratulate for your desperate attempt to reanimate obsolete arguments and on your neverending pursuit of beating the dead horse of creationism.



> 2.	Now, take Darwin, and the theory of evolution. We are often told that the reason said theory won the day was that it fit the facts. Not according to historian Neal Gillespie.


Did you bother to read your own link?



> Darwin (according to Gillespie) operated with a methodology that came to be known as "actualism," whereby the existence of uniform and lawful causes of phenomena in nature are assumed.
> ...
> It is in this context that Gillespie refers to the quote, as follows (p. 62-63):
> Darwin's application of these principles to particular scientific problems seems to have taken shape in the early period of his species work and to have changed little in later years.Surrounded by "inductionists," he was not always confident of the propriety of his practice.
> ...


A little cherry picking goes a long way. 



> a.	The most extensive research into Darwin's religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University).He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about *why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation.*" Business Profiles and Company Information | ZoomInfo.com


IMHO, if you want to attack Darwin using creationist arguments, you might want to update your argument to include *modern NeoDarwinism*.



> b.	Positivism:  a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. Positivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Update: Add the scientific method.



> 3.	Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of *Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble: As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. *Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . Raymo,  Skeptics and True Believers, p.138.


While many can rejoice at this, what does it have to do with evolutionary theory?



> 4.	Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, *"some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, *and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it"
> Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness." Science, 277:892, August 15.


Dawkins is philosophizing. Have you actually ready any of Dawkins' books or are you just repeating creationism talking points? For example, what is Dawkins' advice for humans faced with the biological dilemma of selfish genes?



> a. Ironic, isn't it that 'evolution' is a keystone of Liberalism, yet the highest goal of same is 'equality.'


Evolutionary theory is about nature, not politics.


> 5.	The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that *the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" *(Easterbrook, p. 892).
> Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular sciencenamely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches *the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,. . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate *your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).


And do you have evidence that would suggest a different purpose for living organisms?



> a.	Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that *the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" *(pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).


Depressing? Obviously, you haven't read Dawkins' books. From _Unravelling the Rainbow_:



> "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"  Richard Dawkins


What higher purpose could you want?



> 6.	Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that:* It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . *. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .


This *academic source* begs to differ with your characterization of creationism. The title of the lecture is intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy.



> a.	Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth. ).


Admirable effort, Political Chic.

If I understand your position correctly, the following paraphrase of a famous quote sums it up quite nicely (with apologies to Martin Luther):



> Science is the Devils greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devils appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets..


----------



## Matrixx8 (Nov 23, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> You left off: The Earth is flat.




Just came across this. A truly brilliant understatement.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Antecedents seem to confuse you quite a bit.


----------

