# The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'



## abu afak

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.





__





						Quote mining
					

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...




					rationalwiki.org
				




*Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
...
Examples

*Darwin*
A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*


“”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]



..
.........


----------



## abu afak

*The Quote Mine Project*
*Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines*
*Introduction*
by the talk.origins newsgroupEdited by John Pieret


			Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
		



*One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" *[1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of *a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining."* While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" [4].

In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. *The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent.*
[......]

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, *while Neither bothering to check the Original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact *(as can be seen in a number of these cases)[/b] that there are Errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then Propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. [/b][/B](Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error", i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names they are appropriating.

*In addition, some of the "quotes" were outright fabrications; others were actually taken from creationist authors or other people who doubted, rather than supported, evolution (making their designation as "evolutionists" itself disingenuous); several were expressions of opinion by people with no expertise in fields related to evolution and many were so old as to be of no use at all in understanding present day evolutionary theory. 
The few quotes that can be said to be both in context and from knowledgeable proponents of evolution [7] invariably discuss limited technical subjects which may appear, to those unfamiliar with the details of modern biology, to contradict evolutionary theory but, in fact, do Not.*

Of course, even if each and every one of these quotes was accurate and truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not matter a bit. If all eighty-six were from different scientists [8] and all eighty-six thought evolution wrong, that would not begin to tip the consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to be the _only_ current scientific theory that explains all the myriad facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.
.......

......


----------



## the other mike

Seems to be working.
*According to a study released in the summer of 2019, as many as 40% of Americans believe in a creationist view of human origin within roughly the past 10,000 years .






						Young Earth creationism - RationalWiki
					






					rationalwiki.org
				



*


----------



## abu afak

*Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.*

`


----------



## Sunni Man

*Evolution explained



*


----------



## abu afak

Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
You know. POOF, magic.
Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.

`


----------



## Sunni Man

abu afak said:


> *Approximate 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
> While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.*


...............


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> *Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
> While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.*
> 
> `


I guess the inference you are making here is that only stupid people believe in a Creator.

That's not insulting at all.


----------



## Sunni Man

abu afak said:


> Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
> You know. POOF, magic.


No need to be rude.  ...


----------



## abu afak

Political-Chick-LYING-for-Jesus post #1 in the thread '*The Most Famous Fakes In Science.'*

*ALL relevant ones will be put here. HUNDREDS.
Thousands.
She won't touch this thread as it completes GUTS her only tactic.*



PoliticalChic said:


> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
> You know. POOF, magic.
> Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.
> 
> `


The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.  Which means that this something can be no thing because things (i.e. matter and energy) are not unchanging.

Luckily we have an example of a "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging... truth.

For any given thing there is a final state of fact.  Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way.  In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging.

The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is truth, God is reality, God is existence.

Yoar welcome.


----------



## ding

So if God is truth, logic and love. It would make sense that the material world (aka the universe) that He willed into existence would have those attributes. And not surprisingly, this is exactly what we find.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
> You know. POOF, magic.
> Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.  Which means that this something can be no thing because things (i.e. matter and energy) are not unchanging.
> 
> Luckily we have an example of a "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging... truth.
> 
> For any given thing there is a final state of fact.  Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way.  In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is truth, God is reality, God is existence.
> 
> Yoar welcome.
Click to expand...

Oh look, God of the Gaps pt 68,974.
Knock yourself out.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note Sunni Moron above, who believes god came from nothing.
> You know. POOF, magic.
> Not to mention this stupid Turd, like the one above him, is OFF TOPIC.
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.  Which means that this something can be no thing because things (i.e. matter and energy) are not unchanging.
> 
> Luckily we have an example of a "no thing" which is eternal and unchanging... truth.
> 
> For any given thing there is a final state of fact.  Once discovered it is realized that it was always that way and will always be that way.  In other words, truth is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> The final state of fact or truth is known as reality. Ergo God is truth, God is reality, God is existence.
> 
> Yoar welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, God of the Gaps pt 68,974.
> Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

When one has truth on his side, he argues facts.  When one has logic on his side he argues reason.  When he has neither he does what you just did.


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freerepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.
> 
> The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!
> 
> 
> And he admitted it, you moron.
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> *There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
> A true imbecile.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have another of the fraudulent “quotes” that the dishonest religionist dumps into multiple threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.
> 
> Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.
> 
> Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.
Click to expand...


----------



## abu afak

*Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
"Voting for scientific truth"
(QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*



PoliticalChic said:


> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
Click to expand...





PoliticalChic said:
What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

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



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

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



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


Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
Form a Hypothesis. ...
Conduct an Experiment. ...
Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
*Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*

*

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



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




And?*


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
Click to expand...




And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.




But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.
Click to expand...

*I've had plenty of answers past and present.

Using 100% Pro-Evo Gould as anti-evolution, separating Darwin from the Body of Evolution, which is basically the same NATURAL evolutionary process, AS OPPOSED you You Biblical Literalist Creation (7/11 AdvenTITS YEC) that you Cannot defend and never post as the alternative because it has NO EVIDENCE and you know you are DISHONEST/Lying-for-Jesus and full of ****/LAUGHABLE.

You are DISHONEST FILTH who can't even state her own creation idea because you know it's 100% Trash/indefensible.*


`

`

`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I've had plenty of answers past and present.
> 
> Using 100% Pro-Evo Gould as anti-evolution, separating Darwin from the Body of Evolution, which is basically the same NATURAL evolutionary process, AS OPPOSED you You Biblical Literalist Creation (7/11 AdvenTITS YEC) that you Cannot defend and never post as the alternative because it has NO EVIDENCE and you know you are DISHONEST/Lying-for-Jesus and full of ****/LAUGHABLE.
> 
> You are DISHONEST FILTH who can't even state her own creation idea because you know it's 100% Trash/indefensible.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> `
> 
> `
Click to expand...




Gould destroyed.....eviscerated all of Darwin's premises.

All of 'em.....just as I do yours.

_“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> 
> 
> *5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?*
Click to expand...

*And?*

As we see with regularity, you dump a collection of edited, parsed and partial “quotes” and attempt to make some point you can’t define.









						One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved
					

Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought. Her research could now be used to predict which species...



					www.sciencedaily.com
				





Religionism deserves equal time.

Now might be a good time to offer your experimental data for a flat earth, a 6,000 year old planet and fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, for elucidation, the term 'quote mining' is an attempt at making pejorative the providing quotes for which you, the dunce who used the term, have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But please continue to re-post as many of my 100% true, accurate, and correct posts, as you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I've had plenty of answers past and present.
> 
> Using 100% Pro-Evo Gould as anti-evolution, separating Darwin from the Body of Evolution, which is basically the same NATURAL evolutionary process, AS OPPOSED you You Biblical Literalist Creation (7/11 AdvenTITS YEC) that you Cannot defend and never post as the alternative because it has NO EVIDENCE and you know you are DISHONEST/Lying-for-Jesus and full of ****/LAUGHABLE.
> 
> You are DISHONEST FILTH who can't even state her own creation idea because you know it's 100% Trash/indefensible.*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> `
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gould destroyed.....eviscerated all of Darwin's premises.
> 
> All of 'em.....just as I do yours.
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Click to expand...


The above edited, parsed and phony “quote” is one you dump regularly into threads knowing it’s a fraud.

Here’s the fuller context. What you stole from Harun Yahya represents a common tactic of fraud by religious extremists.

Your fraud is so common that there are entire forums that catalog the frauds of religious extremists.



			Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
		


*Quote #14*


> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [_sic_] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [_sic_] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Snipped in the ellipsis is:



> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."


Following this passage is:



> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> *Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
> While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.*
> 
> `


Knowledge and wisdom is not the same, learn the difference


----------



## Wyatt earp

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> 
> 
> *5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And?*
> 
> As we see with regularity, you dump a collection of edited, parsed and partial “quotes” and attempt to make some point you can’t define.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved
> 
> 
> Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought. Her research could now be used to predict which species...
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionism deserves equal time.
> 
> Now might be a good time to offer your experimental data for a flat earth, a 6,000 year old planet and fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.
Click to expand...

A Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory, shit for brains


----------



## Hollie

bear513 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Politic Chic's QUOTE MINIING post/OP # 56,874
> "Voting for scientific truth"
> (QUOTE MINING LIES FOR JESUS)*
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> *
> 
> 5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?
> No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.
> 1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was *not a biologist* he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.
> 
> 2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* See the problem?* Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?
> 
> None. They are entitled to *their opinions,* on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
> *Steps of the Scientific Method*
> Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
> 
> 
> Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
> Form a Hypothesis. ...
> Conduct an Experiment. ...
> Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
> *Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*
> 
> 
> 
> *5. “*Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. *But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. *Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often *criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”*
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out *experimental proof of Darwinism?
> It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And?*
> 
> As we see with regularity, you dump a collection of edited, parsed and partial “quotes” and attempt to make some point you can’t define.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved
> 
> 
> Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought. Her research could now be used to predict which species...
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionism deserves equal time.
> 
> Now might be a good time to offer your experimental data for a flat earth, a 6,000 year old planet and fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory, shit for brains
Click to expand...


Melodramatic but means what?

Your screeching has nothing to do with experimental data for a flat earth, a 6,000 year old planet and fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.


----------



## Crixus

abu afak said:


> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> 
> ..
> .........




Lame. darewn also said Black people and woman of all races were intellectually infirior to white europien men. no nedx to take his quotes out of context. Darwens racisem is dismissed as "jist being a man of his time". Lame and cowardly. itbpretty clear you have notbread mich of Darwens stuff. Onebreally doesnt have to mine quotes for darwen to soind crazy. Look into the booze, chimpanzees and venerail disease comments and you will see what i mean.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sunni Man said:


> *Evolution explained
> View attachment 367939*


Sunni Man, failing a 7th grade science quiz.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Crixus said:


> darewn also said Black people and woman of all races were intellectually infirior to white europien men


Well then, good thing nothing about the theory of evolution rests on any of Darwin's opinions about anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory, shit for brains


No. A mathematician/astronomer came up with the theory. What a stupid try. Hey, my doctor rides bicycles. Looks like a cyclist cured my strep throat!


----------



## Crixus

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> darewn also said Black people and woman of all races were intellectually infirior to white europien men
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, good thing nothing about the theory of evolution rests on any of Darwin's opinions about anything.
Click to expand...



so its cool as long as you edit the parts that aint "woke"? are you one of those people who say its okay that darwen says blacks are nust above chimls in mental capacity,but nust below Europen white males by just saying the man was a product of bis time? i guess maybe we neex to pull his statue down?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Crixus said:


> so its cool as long as you edit the parts that aint "woke"?





Crixus said:


> so its cool as long as you edit the parts that aint "woke"?


You can stop right there. What do you think i implied is "cool"? Tell me that, and i will answer your question.


----------



## abu afak

*Another sleazy Quote Mining post on the first page (and more to come) of Political Chic's "Voting for Scientific Truth????" *



PoliticalChic said:


> ....."...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> . "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific."
> 
> When you say, erroneously, that there is religion being offered, you are simply proving that you have accepted the methods of government school: ridicule the opposition to silence it.
> 
> You should be ashamed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> *Another sleazy Quote Mining post on the first page (and more to come) of Political Chic's "Voting for Scientific Truth????" *
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....."...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> . "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific."
> 
> When you say, erroneously, that there is religion being offered, you are simply proving that you have accepted the methods of government school: ridicule the opposition to silence it.
> 
> You should be ashamed.
Click to expand...




Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????


Yes they are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????


Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.

Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
Click to expand...




_“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"



Caught you lying again, huh.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
Click to expand...


A function of religionism is often displayed by dishonest “quote-mining”



			Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
		


*Quote #14*


> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [_sic_] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [_sic_] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Snipped in the ellipsis is:



> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."


Following this passage is:



> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.




It’s a terrible thing to see. Religionism can be the cause of fraud and dishonesty.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
Click to expand...

No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.

And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )

Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs. 

Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.
> 
> And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
> 
> Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
> 
> Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
Click to expand...




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



The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.
> 
> And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
> 
> Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
> 
> Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
> 
> 
> 
> The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.
Click to expand...

He is describing the idea of sudden appearance. Your quote mining leaves out the entire rest of the book, in which Gould acknowledges that some species do evolve slowly over time, with several intermediate fossils being found.

Basically, you are a dishonest conman.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.
> 
> And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
> 
> Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
> 
> Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
> 
> 
> 
> The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.
Click to expand...

“We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Gould proposes the very opposite of the fraudulent editing and altering of the “quotes” you manufacture.

You’re just a dishonest fraud.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.
> 
> And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
> 
> Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
> 
> Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
> 
> 
> 
> The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is describing the idea of sudden appearance. Your quote mining leaves out the entire rest of the book, in which Gould acknowledges that some species do evolve slowly over time, with several intermediate fossils being found.
> 
> Basically, you are a dishonest conman.
Click to expand...



Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)



I win again, huh?


'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.


I win on that, too.


Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.*


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
> I win again, huh?
> 
> 
> 'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
> 
> 
> I win on that, too.
> 
> 
> Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.*


No, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.
You're quote mining AGAIN!
Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
*It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.

Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.......]
*Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
*Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
[......]
*The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**.*
[......]
`


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.
> 
> Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
> 
> 
> 
> Caught you lying again, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.
> 
> And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
> 
> Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
> 
> Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
> 
> 
> 
> The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is describing the idea of sudden appearance. Your quote mining leaves out the entire rest of the book, in which Gould acknowledges that some species do evolve slowly over time, with several intermediate fossils being found.
> 
> Basically, you are a dishonest conman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
> 
> 
> 
> I win again, huh?
> 
> 
> 'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
> 
> 
> I win on that, too.
> 
> 
> Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.*
Click to expand...


I guess you enjoy being humiliated for routinely being corrected for the edited, parsed and falsified ‘quotes” you dump into various threads and then declare yourself the winner, like some petulant 10 year old.



			Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
		


*Quote #14*




> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [_sic_] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [_sic_] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Snipped in the ellipsis is:



> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."


Following this passage is:



> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
> I win again, huh?
> 
> 
> 'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
> 
> 
> I win on that, too.
> 
> 
> Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.*
> 
> 
> 
> No, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.
> You're quote mining AGAIN!
> Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
> *It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> 
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> *The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**.*
> [......]
> `
Click to expand...

d


Maybe if you use larger font you'll be right.


Nope......Gould buried Darwin.

Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)



I win again, huh?*


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
> I win again, huh?
> 
> 
> 'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
> 
> 
> I win on that, too.
> 
> 
> Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.*
> 
> 
> 
> No, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.
> You're quote mining AGAIN!
> Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
> *It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> 
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> *The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**.*
> [......]
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> d
> 
> 
> Maybe if you use larger font you'll be right.
> 
> 
> Nope......Gould buried Darwin.
> 
> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
> 
> 
> 
> I win again, huh?*
Click to expand...

That's the same fraud you cut and pasted just minutes ago.

What did you win?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance*


It is both, of course. No, you don't win anything for such a stupid question. Evolution happens at all speeds.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance*
> 
> 
> 
> It is both, of course. No, you don't win anything for such a stupid question. Evolution happens at all speeds.
Click to expand...



Both?


So 'up' is the same as 'down'?


You're a moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or *"Sudden appearance*
> 
> 
> 
> It is both, of course. No, you don't win anything for such a stupid question. Evolution happens at all speeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both?
> 
> 
> So 'up' is the same as 'down'?
> 
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...




Here's an insight that is probably wasted on a moron like you.


. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’*

 MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’


----------



## Picaro

Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.


----------



## fncceo

abu afak said:


> Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.



Roughly 50% of all people have a below average IQ.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture



Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.


----------



## Picaro

Re IQ, given that 85% of new jobs created annually are service jobs that don't require much intelligence, what is the thing with IQ's supposed to prove, that 'evolutionists' are all idiots? We already know that. The only way it will matter is when we start requiring literacy tests and civics tests as prerequisites to vote. As we know, the majority of illiterates already vote Democrat, so we know the education establishment is opposed to increasing average IQ's and has dedicated itself to that goal.


----------



## Picaro

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
Click to expand...


Lots of psuedo-intellectuals identify as both, though, like the ACLU's assortment of lawyers, college academics, etc., so yes, they are connected, legitimately or not.


----------



## fncceo

Picaro said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of psuedo-intellectuals identify as both, though, like the ACLU's assortment of lawyers, college academics, etc., so yes, they are connected, legitimately or not.
Click to expand...


You're confusing correlation with causation.


----------



## Hollie

Picaro said:


> Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.


I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
Click to expand...



Gee....what a shock.....you, being wrong again.


Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

*One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.*

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled _The Dialectical Biologist_, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in _Nature_ magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." _Wikipedia_ begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.



The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for* Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement*, as part of the European Social Forum."

Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/



How about, in the future, you stick to posting about somethings you know anything about.

Unless, of course, that would leave you mute.


----------



## Picaro

fncceo said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of psuedo-intellectuals identify as both, though, like the ACLU's assortment of lawyers, college academics, etc., so yes, they are connected, legitimately or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing correlation with causation.
Click to expand...


More like pointing out some groups are over-represented in some organizations in parts of the country. For instance, Jews as teachers in the New York City school system were vastly over-represented, but they produced some three generations of excellent education results, but then they decided to support 'Affirmative Action', and cut their own throats, never considered that what the racists wanted was a quota system. then they found themselves unemployed en masse, and sniveled about that, to no avail. They got 'replaced' by left wing racist radicals.


----------



## Picaro

Hollie said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?
Click to expand...


Thanks, that means you're just another angry little deviant of some kind who makes stupid arguments and then gets deranged over losing. It's very simple, all 'evolutionists' need to do is present us with a chain of empirical evidence, *then* they can run around claiming evolution is 'fact'; until then they're just liars spreading falsehoods, not 'scientists'. You're obviously unfamiliar with the moral philosophy behind the empirical method. You should take some introductory science courses yourself first, then run around sniveling about other peoples' posts.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee....what a shock.....you, being wrong again.
> 
> 
> Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
> 
> *One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.*
> 
> Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled _The Dialectical Biologist_, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in _Nature_ magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"
> 
> Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." _Wikipedia_ begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!
> 
> In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for* Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement*, as part of the European Social Forum."
> 
> Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network
> 
> http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/
> 
> 
> 
> How about, in the future, you stick to posting about somethings you know anything about.
> 
> Unless, of course, that would leave you mute.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not theology, so there's that.

All that cutting and pasting of other people's comments and you still can't form a coherent thought, even when you cut and paste other people's thoughts.


----------



## Hollie

Picaro said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, that means you're just another angry little deviant of some kind who makes stupid arguments and then gets deranged over losing. It's very simple, all 'evolutionists' need to do is present us with a chain of empirical evidence, *then* they can run around claiming evolution is 'fact'; until then they're just liars spreading falsehoods, not 'scientists'. You're obviously unfamiliar with the philosophy behind the empirical method. You should take some introductory science courses yourself first, then run around sniveling about other peoples' posts.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that the hyper-religious become furious when science challenges their fears and superstitions. Your conspiracy theories about evilutionists who have apparently infiltrated colleges and universities are as entertaining as they are stereotypical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Both?


Correct. Both occur. Having a hard time wrapping that last, diseased brain cell around this? That's your problem.

Haha...you came into this thread to argue and whine, and you ended up being the case study for the thread title. Good stuff.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
> MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’*











						Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Kevin B. MacDonald (Evolutionary Pscychologist)*​
(1944) *is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist* and a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[4][5][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people.​​Scholars characterize MacDonald's theory as a tendentious form of circular reasoning, which assumes its conclusion to be true regardless of empirical evidence. The theory fails the basic test of any scientific theory, the criterion of falsifiability, because MacDonald refuses to provide or acknowledge any factual pattern of Jewish behavior—such as very high Jewish intermarriage rates and the self-identification of most Jews as being white people themselves—that would tend to disprove his idea that Jews have evolved to be ethnocentric and anti-white.[6] Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.[7]​​​MacDonald's theory *has received support from his fellow antisemitic conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazi groups, whose premises and programs he has openly endorsed.[8][9] He is active in the American neo-Nazi movement, *and serves as editor of _The Occidental Observer_,[1][10] which he says covers "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".[10] He is described by the Anti-Defamation League as having "become a primary voice for anti-Semitism from far-right intellectuals"[11] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as [n]"the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic".[/b][4] He has been described as part of the alt-right movement[12] and has spoken at conferences for Holocaust deniers. In 2008, the California State University, Long Beach academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[13]​​*MacDonald claims a suite of traits he attributes to Jews, including Higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have culturally Evolved* to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes Jews are motivated by a hatred and "hostility toward American Christian culture"[14] and have used this purported advantage to scheme to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power of the European-derived Christian majorities in the Western world.[14][15][16]...​​
*Political Sheik quoting Famous Anti-semite Kevin MacDonald.
And again, being a Maxist (or Libertarian, RWer) does not change the Fact of Evolution Political Sheik has used/quoted Gould hundreds of times.

Now, when I show the 12 IQ MORON what he actually thinks, she tries to Discredit one (if not THEE) of her Most used sources.*

I've seen this raging anti-semite for years on several mbs.
His main gig admits Ashkenazi Jews EVOLVED smarter (except for indeependent), but sees it as plot to take over the world
Even though non-Orthodox Jewish marriage is over 60%.

*And of course has NO answer to her knowingly DISHONEST Quote Mining.
She has NO DEFENSE.
DISHONEST 7/11 Adventist OUTED, Discredited, Ruined.*

.....

`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
> MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kevin B. MacDonald (Evolutionary Pscychologist)*​
> (1944) *is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist* and a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[4][5][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people.​​Scholars characterize MacDonald's theory as a tendentious form of circular reasoning, which assumes its conclusion to be true regardless of empirical evidence. The theory fails the basic test of any scientific theory, the criterion of falsifiability, because MacDonald refuses to provide or acknowledge any factual pattern of Jewish behavior—such as very high Jewish intermarriage rates and the self-identification of most Jews as being white people themselves—that would tend to disprove his idea that Jews have evolved to be ethnocentric and anti-white.[6] Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.[7]​​​MacDonald's theory *has received support from his fellow antisemitic conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazi groups, whose premises and programs he has openly endorsed.[8][9] He is active in the American neo-Nazi movement, *and serves as editor of _The Occidental Observer_,[1][10] which he says covers "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".[10] He is described by the Anti-Defamation League as having "become a primary voice for anti-Semitism from far-right intellectuals"[11] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as [n]"the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic".[/b][4] He has been described as part of the alt-right movement[12] and has spoken at conferences for Holocaust deniers. In 2008, the California State University, Long Beach academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[13]​​*MacDonald claims a suite of traits he attributes to Jews, including Higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have culturally Evolved* to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes Jews are motivated by a hatred and "hostility toward American Christian culture"[14] and have used this purported advantage to scheme to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power of the European-derived Christian majorities in the Western world.[14][15][16]...​​
> *Political Sheik quoting Famous Anti-semite Kevin MacDonald.
> And again, being a Maxist (or Libertarian, RWer) does not change the Fact of Evolution Political Sheik has used/quoted Gould hundreds of times.
> 
> Now, when I show the 12 IQ MORON what he actually thinks, she tries to Discredit one (if not THEE) of her Most used sources.*
> 
> I've seen this raging anti-semite for years on several mbs.
> His main gig admits Ashkenazi Jews EVOLVED smarter (except for indeependent), but sees it as plot to take over the world
> Even though non-Orthodox Jewish marriage is over 60%.
> 
> *And of course has NO answer to her knowingly DISHONEST Quote Mining.
> She has NO DEFENSE.
> DISHONEST 7/11 Adventist OUTED, Discredited, Ruined.*
> 
> .....
> 
> `
Click to expand...





Yet, after all that.......the quote remains correct and accurate.


----------



## Picaro

Hollie said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, that means you're just another angry little deviant of some kind who makes stupid arguments and then gets deranged over losing. It's very simple, all 'evolutionists' need to do is present us with a chain of empirical evidence, *then* they can run around claiming evolution is 'fact'; until then they're just liars spreading falsehoods, not 'scientists'. You're obviously unfamiliar with the philosophy behind the empirical method. You should take some introductory science courses yourself first, then run around sniveling about other peoples' posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed that the hyper-religious become furious when science challenges their fears and superstitions. Your conspiracy theories about evilutionists who have apparently infiltrated colleges and universities are as entertaining as they are stereotypical.
Click to expand...


lol you're just projecting; as I've said many times before I'm an atheist, while you're just another angry pagan who hates Xians and babbles rubbish, cuz they make homo fetishists  cry n stuff.


----------



## Picaro

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
> MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kevin B. MacDonald (Evolutionary Pscychologist)*​
> (1944) *is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist* and a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[4][5][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people.​​Scholars characterize MacDonald's theory as a tendentious form of circular reasoning, which assumes its conclusion to be true regardless of empirical evidence. The theory fails the basic test of any scientific theory, the criterion of falsifiability, because MacDonald refuses to provide or acknowledge any factual pattern of Jewish behavior—such as very high Jewish intermarriage rates and the self-identification of most Jews as being white people themselves—that would tend to disprove his idea that Jews have evolved to be ethnocentric and anti-white.[6] Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.[7]​​​MacDonald's theory *has received support from his fellow antisemitic conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazi groups, whose premises and programs he has openly endorsed.[8][9] He is active in the American neo-Nazi movement, *and serves as editor of _The Occidental Observer_,[1][10] which he says covers "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".[10] He is described by the Anti-Defamation League as having "become a primary voice for anti-Semitism from far-right intellectuals"[11] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as [n]"the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic".[/b][4] He has been described as part of the alt-right movement[12] and has spoken at conferences for Holocaust deniers. In 2008, the California State University, Long Beach academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[13]​​*MacDonald claims a suite of traits he attributes to Jews, including Higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have culturally Evolved* to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes Jews are motivated by a hatred and "hostility toward American Christian culture"[14] and have used this purported advantage to scheme to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power of the European-derived Christian majorities in the Western world.[14][15][16]...​​
> *Political Sheik quoting Famous Anti-semite Kevin MacDonald.
> And again, being a Maxist (or Libertarian, RWer) does not change the Fact of Evolution Political Sheik has used/quoted Gould hundreds of times.
> 
> Now, when I show the 12 IQ MORON what he actually thinks, she tries to Discredit one (if not THEE) of her Most used sources.*
> 
> I've seen this raging anti-semite for years on several mbs.
> His main gig admits Ashkenazi Jews EVOLVED smarter (except for indeependent), but sees it as plot to take over the world
> Even though non-Orthodox Jewish marriage is over 60%.
> 
> *And of course has NO answer to her knowingly DISHONEST Quote Mining.
> She has NO DEFENSE.
> DISHONEST 7/11 Adventist OUTED, Discredited, Ruined.*
> 
> .....
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, after all that.......the quote remains correct and accurate.
Click to expand...


The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' theory is one of the more hilarious handwaves they invented to cover the utter lack of any empirical evidence though. It really sells well to the fashion victims.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Picaro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
> MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kevin B. MacDonald (Evolutionary Pscychologist)*​
> (1944) *is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist* and a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[4][5][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people.​​Scholars characterize MacDonald's theory as a tendentious form of circular reasoning, which assumes its conclusion to be true regardless of empirical evidence. The theory fails the basic test of any scientific theory, the criterion of falsifiability, because MacDonald refuses to provide or acknowledge any factual pattern of Jewish behavior—such as very high Jewish intermarriage rates and the self-identification of most Jews as being white people themselves—that would tend to disprove his idea that Jews have evolved to be ethnocentric and anti-white.[6] Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.[7]​​​MacDonald's theory *has received support from his fellow antisemitic conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazi groups, whose premises and programs he has openly endorsed.[8][9] He is active in the American neo-Nazi movement, *and serves as editor of _The Occidental Observer_,[1][10] which he says covers "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".[10] He is described by the Anti-Defamation League as having "become a primary voice for anti-Semitism from far-right intellectuals"[11] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as [n]"the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic".[/b][4] He has been described as part of the alt-right movement[12] and has spoken at conferences for Holocaust deniers. In 2008, the California State University, Long Beach academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[13]​​*MacDonald claims a suite of traits he attributes to Jews, including Higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have culturally Evolved* to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes Jews are motivated by a hatred and "hostility toward American Christian culture"[14] and have used this purported advantage to scheme to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power of the European-derived Christian majorities in the Western world.[14][15][16]...​​
> *Political Sheik quoting Famous Anti-semite Kevin MacDonald.
> And again, being a Maxist (or Libertarian, RWer) does not change the Fact of Evolution Political Sheik has used/quoted Gould hundreds of times.
> 
> Now, when I show the 12 IQ MORON what he actually thinks, she tries to Discredit one (if not THEE) of her Most used sources.*
> 
> I've seen this raging anti-semite for years on several mbs.
> His main gig admits Ashkenazi Jews EVOLVED smarter (except for indeependent), but sees it as plot to take over the world
> Even though non-Orthodox Jewish marriage is over 60%.
> 
> *And of course has NO answer to her knowingly DISHONEST Quote Mining.
> She has NO DEFENSE.
> DISHONEST 7/11 Adventist OUTED, Discredited, Ruined.*
> 
> .....
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, after all that.......the quote remains correct and accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' theory is one of the more hilarious handwaves they invented to cover the utter lack of any empirical evidence though. It really sells well to the fashion victims.
Click to expand...



I don't know it it fits 'hilarious,' but it is so clearly a refutation of Darwin's theory that it makes the apologists for Darwin/Gould do more twists and turns in that post than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> I don't know it it fits 'hilarious,' but it is so clearly a refutation of Darwin's theory


No. It is a modification of one basic idea of Darwin's theory, which has several fundamental ideas. That idea is that evolution and speciation only occurs slowly as small changes build up. The idea of puntuated evolution says that speciation can occur rather quickly. 

You keep making this same, false statement. Not that you have the integrity to care.


----------



## Picaro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it it fits 'hilarious,' but it is so clearly a refutation of Darwin's theory
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is a modification of one basic idea of Darwin's theory, which has several fundamental ideas. That idea is that evolution and speciation only occurs slowly as small changes build up. The idea of puntuated evolution says that speciation can occur rather quickly.
> 
> You keep making this same, false statement. Not that you have the integrity to care.
Click to expand...


lol lol lol you don't even understand the theory of evolution, then. But we know that already. Jerry Falwell The Evul Xian Man said Bad Things about butt raping little boys n stuff, so all faggots have to defend stupid retarded theories and fake 'science' spread by crackpots, and then snivel when people keep pointing out you're just idiot neo-pagan cultists.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Picaro said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it it fits 'hilarious,' but it is so clearly a refutation of Darwin's theory
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is a modification of one basic idea of Darwin's theory, which has several fundamental ideas. That idea is that evolution and speciation only occurs slowly as small changes build up. The idea of puntuated evolution says that speciation can occur rather quickly.
> 
> You keep making this same, false statement. Not that you have the integrity to care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol lol lol you don't even understand the theory of evolution, then. But we know that already. Jerry Falwell The Evul Xian Man said Bad Things about butt raping little boys n stuff, so all faggots have to defend stupid retarded theories and fake 'science' spread by crackpots, and then snivel when people keep pointing out you're just idiot neo-pagan cultists.
Click to expand...


" you don't even understand the theory of evolution,"


Here are some examples of the brilliance from the dunces:

“_Evolution is a fact_.” 
Science Believers

And this…

“_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” 
The Pretense Called Evolution



And…
“Evolution is 100 percent fact”





						The Pretense Called Evolution
					

That's not evolution.  There is no way god made anything as ignorant you



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




* 

And…

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


And this winner:

_“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
> MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kevin B. MacDonald (Evolutionary Pscychologist)*​
> (1944) *is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist* and a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[4][5][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people.​​Scholars characterize MacDonald's theory as a tendentious form of circular reasoning, which assumes its conclusion to be true regardless of empirical evidence. The theory fails the basic test of any scientific theory, the criterion of falsifiability, because MacDonald refuses to provide or acknowledge any factual pattern of Jewish behavior—such as very high Jewish intermarriage rates and the self-identification of most Jews as being white people themselves—that would tend to disprove his idea that Jews have evolved to be ethnocentric and anti-white.[6] Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.[7]​​​MacDonald's theory *has received support from his fellow antisemitic conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazi groups, whose premises and programs he has openly endorsed.[8][9] He is active in the American neo-Nazi movement, *and serves as editor of _The Occidental Observer_,[1][10] which he says covers "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".[10] He is described by the Anti-Defamation League as having "become a primary voice for anti-Semitism from far-right intellectuals"[11] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as [n]"the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic".[/b][4] He has been described as part of the alt-right movement[12] and has spoken at conferences for Holocaust deniers. In 2008, the California State University, Long Beach academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[13]​​*MacDonald claims a suite of traits he attributes to Jews, including Higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have culturally Evolved* to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes Jews are motivated by a hatred and "hostility toward American Christian culture"[14] and have used this purported advantage to scheme to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power of the European-derived Christian majorities in the Western world.[14][15][16]...​​
> *Political Sheik quoting Famous Anti-semite Kevin MacDonald.
> And again, being a Maxist (or Libertarian, RWer) does not change the Fact of Evolution Political Sheik has used/quoted Gould hundreds of times.
> 
> Now, when I show the 12 IQ MORON what he actually thinks, she tries to Discredit one (if not THEE) of her Most used sources.*
> 
> I've seen this raging anti-semite for years on several mbs.
> His main gig admits Ashkenazi Jews EVOLVED smarter (except for indeependent), but sees it as plot to take over the world
> Even though non-Orthodox Jewish marriage is over 60%.
> 
> *And of course has NO answer to her knowingly DISHONEST Quote Mining.
> She has NO DEFENSE.
> DISHONEST 7/11 Adventist OUTED, Discredited, Ruined.*
> 
> .....
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, after all that.......the quote remains correct and accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' theory is one of the more hilarious handwaves they invented to cover the utter lack of any empirical evidence though. It really sells well to the fashion victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it it fits 'hilarious,' but it is so clearly a refutation of Darwin's theory that it makes the apologists for Darwin/Gould do more twists and turns in that post than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!
Click to expand...

As usual, out of your element of "quote-mining'' where you edit, parse and cut and paste ''quotes'' you steal from Harun Yahya, you're just clueless.


The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:


			Punctuated Equilibria
		


Paleontology should be informed by neontology.
Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis.
Most speciation occurs via peripatric speciation.
Large, widespread species usually change slowly, if at all, during their time of residence.
Daughter species usually develop in a geographically limited region.
Daughter species usually develop in a stratigraphically limited extent, which is small in relation to total residence time of the species.
Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.
Adaptive change in lineages occurs mostly during periods of speciation.
Trends in adaptation occur mostly through the mechanism of species selection.

Gould summarizes as follows:
"... punctuated equilibrium makes its major contribution to evolutionary theory, not by revising microevolutionary mechanics, but by individuating species (and thereby establishing the basis for an independent theoretical domain of macroevolution)."

Gould, S. J. (2002) p. 781-782.



I'll try to dumb it down for the hyper-religious loons:  Gould is saying that the _observed_ pattern of punctuated equilibrium establishes an accelerated _pattern_ of evolution. As such, the larger population (scientists call that population a ''species''), become the "individuals" within a population. The survival of species within the group occurs by sorting and species selection.

Please feel free to offer your ''quote'' from Harun Yahya that supports your competing theory of a 6,000 year old planet, Arks cruising the seas, people living to be 900 years old and that creepy thing of incestuous and familial relations as Noah and his immediate family repopulated the planet.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Everybody should read at least one or two of the many marvelous “popular science” books of Stephen Jay Gould, the most famous scientific historian and *resolute defender of evolution *of his generation. As a younger but already mature adult I read at least six of his more famous books, some of which were collections of brilliant and entertaining essays that appeared originally in _Natural History_ magazine over many years.

To imply, as the despicably dishonest PoliticalChic does, that Gould _*opposed*_ evolution ... is too preposterous for words.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

abu afak said:


> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> 
> ..
> .........


Liberal tolerance is a myth.
All religions have beliefs in them that are not scientific.
When the Left Wingers are only obsessed with the "creationist" it's just hate.
I am not religious, but I have a wide tolerance for other people's beliefs because that is their culture and none of my business.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Everybody should read at least one or two of the many marvelous “popular science” books of Stephen Jay Gould, the most famous scientific historian and *resolute defender of evolution *of his generation. As a younger but already mature adult I read at least six of his more famous books, some of which were collections of brilliant and entertaining essays that appeared originally in _Natural History_ magazine over many years.
> 
> To imply, as the despicably dishonest PoliticalChic does, that Gould _*opposed*_ evolution ... is too preposterous for words.





You mean the Marxist Gould, who reversed what Darwin said...'gradualism'....and applied Marx's theory of history as his 'scientific' theory???


That Gould?????


So you never got over my revealing you to be a windbag and a stuffed shirt?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who did so.....but I'll take the credit.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody should read at least one or two of the many marvelous “popular science” books of Stephen Jay Gould, the most famous scientific historian and *resolute defender of evolution *of his generation. As a younger but already mature adult I read at least six of his more famous books, some of which were collections of brilliant and entertaining essays that appeared originally in _Natural History_ magazine over many years.
> 
> To imply, as the despicably dishonest PoliticalChic does, that Gould _*opposed*_ evolution ... is too preposterous for words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Marxist Gould, who reversed what Darwin said...'gradualism'....and applied Marx's theory of history as his 'scientific' theory???
> 
> 
> That Gould?????
> 
> 
> So you never got over my revealing you to be a windbag and a stuffed shirt?
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who did so.....but I'll take the credit.
Click to expand...


So... you are reduced to your usual tactic of juvenile tantrums when you don't have a handy ''quote'' from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

*“The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters... Creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.”*

— Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262. ]


----------



## Picaro

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> *“The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters... Creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.”*
> 
> — Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262. ]



the really funny thing is, it's not up to 'creationists' or anybody else to prove your premises wrong, i.e. prove a negative it's you that have to defend the theory.

So, go ahead and post the empirical chain of evidence. So far, re 'humans' all the usual 'sources only show pics of a few bones from extinct species of apes with sometimes millions of years of gaps, and all of which will fit on my kitchen table. You deviants are seriously insane if you think that's 'factual evidence'. And, you clearly have no idea what empiricism is all about. The real probabilities are that the Earth would to be 10 times older and extremely 'lucky' to have 'evolved' even a fraction of the way to 'now', i.e. some 'magical' impossibilities have to happen for your dumbass. 

What is obvious is you're not discussing 'science' at all, your premises are all about Xian Bashing, not 'science'; you're just a deviant cultist.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Picaro said:


> “... all of which will fit on my kitchen table.”


*Poor Picaro sitting at his empty kitchen table.* Not a single one of the tens of thousands of hardworking paleontologists and micro-biologists working on the fossil and DNA evidence of evolution, none of the curators at the world’s great museums with bones and fossils on display or carefully stored in underground vaults, *nobody* bothers to come lay out the evidence before him ...


----------



## abu afak

*DISHONEST Poltical Sheik is at it again.*





						Tossing Those Terms Around
					

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.   Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



*
Quote Mining/LYING-for-Jesus again in another new Bogus thread
Her Only game.
But I'm cutting her legs out from under her.*


			
				PoliticalChic said:
			
		

> View attachment 371842
> *Alexander Fleming*, in full *Sir Alexander Fleming*, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
> Britannica.com
> 1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.
> 
> To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, _Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea_, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.
> 
> 3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of _Penicillium _(another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
> See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.
> 4. Here’s the problem:
> 
> “The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes*. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” *Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956
> 
> 5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> 
> ..
> .........


Is it acceptable to quote moohamad?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
> MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kevin B. MacDonald (Evolutionary Pscychologist)*​
> (1944) *is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist* and a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[4][5][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people.​​Scholars characterize MacDonald's theory as a tendentious form of circular reasoning, which assumes its conclusion to be true regardless of empirical evidence. The theory fails the basic test of any scientific theory, the criterion of falsifiability, because MacDonald refuses to provide or acknowledge any factual pattern of Jewish behavior—such as very high Jewish intermarriage rates and the self-identification of most Jews as being white people themselves—that would tend to disprove his idea that Jews have evolved to be ethnocentric and anti-white.[6] Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.[7]​​​MacDonald's theory *has received support from his fellow antisemitic conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazi groups, whose premises and programs he has openly endorsed.[8][9] He is active in the American neo-Nazi movement, *and serves as editor of _The Occidental Observer_,[1][10] which he says covers "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".[10] He is described by the Anti-Defamation League as having "become a primary voice for anti-Semitism from far-right intellectuals"[11] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as [n]"the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic".[/b][4] He has been described as part of the alt-right movement[12] and has spoken at conferences for Holocaust deniers. In 2008, the California State University, Long Beach academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[13]​​*MacDonald claims a suite of traits he attributes to Jews, including Higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have culturally Evolved* to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes Jews are motivated by a hatred and "hostility toward American Christian culture"[14] and have used this purported advantage to scheme to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power of the European-derived Christian majorities in the Western world.[14][15][16]...​​
> *Political Sheik quoting Famous Anti-semite Kevin MacDonald.
> And again, being a Maxist (or Libertarian, RWer) does not change the Fact of Evolution Political Sheik has used/quoted Gould hundreds of times.
> 
> Now, when I show the 12 IQ MORON what he actually thinks, she tries to Discredit one (if not THEE) of her Most used sources.*
> 
> I've seen this raging anti-semite for years on several mbs.
> His main gig admits Ashkenazi Jews EVOLVED smarter (except for indeependent), but sees it as plot to take over the world
> Even though non-Orthodox Jewish marriage is over 60%.
> 
> *And of course has NO answer to her knowingly DISHONEST Quote Mining.
> She has NO DEFENSE.
> DISHONEST 7/11 Adventist OUTED, Discredited, Ruined.*
> 
> .....
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, after all that.......the quote remains correct and accurate.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're an antisemite, too, in addition to all of your other revolting qualities. Color me not surprised.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

One of the great pleasures of reading Evolutionist Stephen Gould’s writings on the history of science is that he had deep sociological insights into usually unexamined prejudices that scientists inevitably bring to social and even biological science.

He also publicly examined possible “prejudices” he may have brought to his own studies. Hence he openly discussed at length everything from his own family background to the politics of his generation to the way his passion for baseball may have subtly effected his own scientific views and interpretations of evidence. He was a rather brilliant sociologist of scientists and their tendency to misread evidence in subtle — and sometimes not so subtle — ways.

Of course crude, dishonest, totally ignorant and anti-scientific people who support nonsensical creationist theories have no ability to examine their own prejudices whatsoever.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> ..
> .........



abu afak you're quote mining yourself you dumbass POS using that idiotic RationalWiki website.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> Plagiarize???? Only Liberals do that......
> Let's get this straight, and, at the same time, reveal yet another of your lies.
> 1. I never plagiarize: I always link and source quotes I use to construct an unchallengeable thread.....as you've found.
> 2. You, and every Liberal, plagiarize in every post.
> You quote Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.
> 3. I only have about a hundred thousand posts......surely you can find an example of me plagiarizing.


*You source them of course.
Otherwise you wouldn't be Quote Mining!
Strawman Non-answer. Another Misleading tactic.

Also, using sourced, but unlinked quotes in the identical series they are listed on a website IS Plagiarism, as it takes a creative purpose and ability.*

However, you do Not always link them, just put a name on a quote.
*Links would probably reveal even more Creationism BS websites. A Position you are too embarrassed to take despite the fact that IS your position CreationChic, and the very reason for your Dishonest/Fake 'science'/quote-mining tactic.

You are DISHONEST FRAUD, LYING/MISLEADING FOR THE LITERALIST CHRISTIAN CULT, Seven-Eleven Adventists.

(PS: I would suggest you quote and answer PoliticalChic here in this thread and that would RUIN her DISHONEST DAILY Multi-Thread SPAMMING OF THE SAME QUOTES DOZENS OF TIMES in different threads.
Apparently I did indeed discourage her from posting/spamming in this section for two days by using this thread to reply)*


`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiarize???? Only Liberals do that......
> Let's get this straight, and, at the same time, reveal yet another of your lies.
> 1. I never plagiarize: I always link and source quotes I use to construct an unchallengeable thread.....as you've found.
> 2. You, and every Liberal, plagiarize in every post.
> You quote Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.
> 3. I only have about a hundred thousand posts......surely you can find an example of me plagiarizing.
> 
> 
> 
> *You source them of course.
> Otherwise you wouldn't be Quote Mining!
> Strawman Non-answer. Another Misleading tactic.
> 
> Also, using sourced, but unlinked quotes in the identical series they are listed on a website IS Plagiarism, as it takes a creative purpose and ability.*
> 
> However, you do Not always link them, just put a name on a quote.
> *Links would probably reveal even more Creationism BS websites. A Position you are too embarrassed to take despite the fact that IS your position CreationChic, and the very reason for your Dishonest/Fake 'science'/quote-mining tactic.
> 
> You are DISHONEST FRAUD, LYING/MISLEADING FOR THE LITERALIST CHRISTIAN CULT, Seven-Eleven Adventists.
> 
> (PS: I would suggest you quote and answer PoliticalChic here in this thread and that would RUIN her DISHONEST DAILY Multi-Thread SPAMMING OF THE SAME QUOTES DOZENS OF TIMES in different threads.
> Apparently I did indeed discourage her from posting/spamming in this section for two days by using this thread to reply)*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...



"Quote mining" is a phrase one uses when they can't dispute an accurate quote.

I never have to use the phrase.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiarize???? Only Liberals do that......
> Let's get this straight, and, at the same time, reveal yet another of your lies.
> 1. I never plagiarize: I always link and source quotes I use to construct an unchallengeable thread.....as you've found.
> 2. You, and every Liberal, plagiarize in every post.
> You quote Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.
> 3. I only have about a hundred thousand posts......surely you can find an example of me plagiarizing.
> 
> 
> 
> *You source them of course.
> Otherwise you wouldn't be Quote Mining!
> Strawman Non-answer. Another Misleading tactic.
> 
> Also, using sourced, but unlinked quotes in the identical series they are listed on a website IS Plagiarism, as it takes a creative purpose and ability.*
> 
> However, you do Not always link them, just put a name on a quote.
> *Links would probably reveal even more Creationism BS websites. A Position you are too embarrassed to take despite the fact that IS your position CreationChic, and the very reason for your Dishonest/Fake 'science'/quote-mining tactic.
> 
> You are DISHONEST FRAUD, LYING/MISLEADING FOR THE LITERALIST CHRISTIAN CULT, Seven-Eleven Adventists.
> 
> (PS: I would suggest you quote and answer PoliticalChic here in this thread and that would RUIN her DISHONEST DAILY Multi-Thread SPAMMING OF THE SAME QUOTES DOZENS OF TIMES in different threads.
> Apparently I did indeed discourage her from posting/spamming in this section for two days by using this thread to reply)*
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote mining" is a phrase one uses when they can't dispute an accurate quote.
> 
> I never have to use the phrase.
Click to expand...

“Quote mining” is a tactic used by the hyper-religious such as yourself and is typically accompanied by the dishonest tactic of editing, parsing and clipping a single sentence out of an entire paragraph.

You don’t understand the phrase and relentlessly use the dishonest tactic. It’s a symptom of religionism as practiced by the angry, self hating types.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> "Quote mining" is a phrase one uses when they can't dispute an accurate quote.


This shows you have absolutely no grasp of what "quote mining" means.


----------



## Lewdog

This happens ALL the time, and despite it being against the rules, because the rule comes down to whether those in control 'feel' it was purposefully edited to to take it out of context, it doesn't always get enforced.  People will simply use the excuse they didn't want to reply to your total post, so they broke the quote down, knowing full-well they did it with malicious intent.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> I can destroy Darwin's theory without any reference to reliigon.
> The fact is, Darwinism is part of the Left's religion, Militant Secularism.
> *"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
> There are many examples of evidence that prove the very opposite of what Darwin proposed.
> 
> "Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> Yet Darwin-believers accept it on faith....because it is a part of their religion.


*You cannot do ANYTHING WITHOUT DISHONEST QUOTE MINING As above.

You're a ONE TRICK PHONY.

A CULT NUTBAG WHO NEEDS TREATMENT.*

*.*


----------



## abu afak

*DISHONEST NUTBAG 7/11 ADVENTIST NUTBAG PoliticalChic is back Quote Mining!
I Shut her up for at least a week/ten days and she must have though I was gone since I've been sparse for a few days, 
so she's trying a new thread.
But I'm still here WACK JOB.
You got NO Game but quote mining you Cultist Freak.*



PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> ....
> *2. Freeman John Dyson* (15 December 1923 – 28 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote
> ...
> 4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine _The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, _http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:
> 
> “Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know _why_. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.
> ....
> *As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. *[/B]


----------



## abu afak

12 IQ Priktor starts a 100% Classic Quote Mining thread. (see my sig too)  





Viktor said:


> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
> EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
> 
> *"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian-- Franklin Harold, Emeritus*
> Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
> University, in an Oxford University Press text.
> 
> "Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
> fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
> clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
> model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
> the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
> None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
> mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
> biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
> scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
> for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
> member Philip Skell
> 
> 
> "[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
> half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
> the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
> Sciences member Lynn Margulis
> 
> "Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
> numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
> --Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
> transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
> imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
> been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
> evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould
> 
> "Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
> tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
> various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
> father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese
> 
> "Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
> first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
> therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
> diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
> Textbook
> 
> "It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
> with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
> new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
> functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
> molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
> leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
> 
> "New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
> connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
> --Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr
> 
> Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
> either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
> as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
> scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells
> 
> The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:
> 
> "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
> shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
> independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
> times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
> eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
> bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
> changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
> between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
> that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
> cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
> organisms."
> 
> Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
> thing in 2002:
> 
> "Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
> of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
> paleontologists, still has never been traced."


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.
> 
> “Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, *Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.” *
> Religion as Opium of the People
> 
> His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. *Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.*
> Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, *mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.
> 
> The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote *to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,* and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
> Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately *our neo-Marxist government schools persist* in propping up that love of Marx’s, *the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.*
> Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, *there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.*
> 
> But, some clearly *false narratives survive*….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of *mathematicians are hostile*, as well.
> *“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up.* In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on *mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.*
> 
> A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: _There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology_. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
> [Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]
> 
> 
> 
> So…when *Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics*…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> 
> ..
> .........


Even the "simplest" of eyes is miraculous. And in all sincerity, how would any organism know that it couldn't see, in a world devoid of sight? Why would an organism become able to see if it lived for millions of years in the dark? "Nature did it", sounds far arrogant, than a CREATOR envisioned it and fashioned it.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *Even the "simplest" of eyes is miraculous.* And in all sincerity, how would any organism know that it couldn't see, in a world devoid of sight? Why would an organism become able to see if it lived for millions of years in the dark? "Nature did it", sounds far arrogant, than a CREATOR envisioned it and fashioned it.











						Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity
					

Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.



					yourlogicalfallacyis.com
				








*personal incredulity*
*Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.*

Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

`


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> ..
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> Even the "simplest" of eyes is miraculous. And in all sincerity, how would any organism know that it couldn't see, in a world devoid of sight? Why would an organism become able to see if it lived for millions of years in the dark? "Nature did it", sounds far arrogant, than a CREATOR envisioned it and fashioned it.
Click to expand...


The ''eye'' claim is standard fare for creationers. There's nothing ''miraculous'' about the eye.

*Claim CB301:*
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

*Source:*
Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
*Response:*

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust


All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene. _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
*Links:*
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve? 




			CB301:  Eye complexity


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Even the "simplest" of eyes is miraculous.* And in all sincerity, how would any organism know that it couldn't see, in a world devoid of sight? Why would an organism become able to see if it lived for millions of years in the dark? "Nature did it", sounds far arrogant, than a CREATOR envisioned it and fashioned it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity
> 
> 
> Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
> 
> 
> 
> yourlogicalfallacyis.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 389191
> *personal incredulity*
> *Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.*
> 
> Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
> 
> Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Isn't this exactly as atheists are ---- because they are unaware how GOD works, they made out like HE simply doesn't exist --- since GOD seemingly doesn't do their bidding?  Personally, I do not believe in random chance. I believe everything (no matter how seemingly trivial events might appear to the observer) happens for a reason.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> ..
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> Even the "simplest" of eyes is miraculous. And in all sincerity, how would any organism know that it couldn't see, in a world devoid of sight? Why would an organism become able to see if it lived for millions of years in the dark? "Nature did it", sounds far arrogant, than a CREATOR envisioned it and fashioned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ''eye'' claim is standard fare for creationers. There's nothing ''miraculous'' about the eye.
> 
> *Claim CB301:*
> The eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> *Source:*
> Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
> Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
> *Response:*
> 
> This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
> photosensitive cell
> aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
> an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
> pigment cells forming a small depression
> pigment cells forming a deeper depression
> the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
> muscles allowing the lens to adjust
> 
> 
> All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
> 
> Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene. _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
> 
> Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
> *Links:*
> Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB301:  Eye complexity
Click to expand...

Might I ask why scientists haven't taken a species with "naturally" poor/inferior eyesight and bred it to have superb/far superior eyesight? Better yet, why haven't scientists developed a biological eye for a species which has none? With all the expert directive surely they should be able to consolidate the steps just a bit. I mean, mother nature could care less whether anything sees or not. And clearly and organism that has no eyes, has no clue that it's missing anything.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> Isn't this exactly as atheists are ---- because they are unaware how GOD works, they made out like HE simply doesn't exist --- since GOD seemingly doesn't do their bidding?  Personally, I do not believe in random chance. I believe everything (no matter how seemingly trivial events might appear to the observer) happens for a reason.


Actually you should be talking about "Scientists", who go out and look for answers, and do not accept doctrine (Yes more Goddit/permanent ignorance.) as an answer.

As to atheists, they/we prefer the overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution rather than No-evidence god/s as an answer.

`


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> ..
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> Even the "simplest" of eyes is miraculous. And in all sincerity, how would any organism know that it couldn't see, in a world devoid of sight? Why would an organism become able to see if it lived for millions of years in the dark? "Nature did it", sounds far arrogant, than a CREATOR envisioned it and fashioned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ''eye'' claim is standard fare for creationers. There's nothing ''miraculous'' about the eye.
> 
> *Claim CB301:*
> The eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> *Source:*
> Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
> Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
> *Response:*
> 
> This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
> photosensitive cell
> aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
> an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
> pigment cells forming a small depression
> pigment cells forming a deeper depression
> the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
> muscles allowing the lens to adjust
> 
> 
> All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
> 
> Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene. _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
> 
> Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
> *Links:*
> Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB301:  Eye complexity
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might I ask why scientists haven't taken a species with "naturally" poor/inferior eyesight and bred it to have superb/far superior eyesight? Better yet, why haven't scientists developed a biological eye for a species which has none? With all the expert directive surely they should be able to consolidate the steps just a bit. I mean, mother nature could care less whether anything sees or not. And clearly and organism that has no eyes, has no clue that it's missing anything.
Click to expand...

Might I ask why religionists haven't done that?


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this exactly as atheists are ---- because they are unaware how GOD works, they made out like HE simply doesn't exist --- since GOD seemingly doesn't do their bidding?  Personally, I do not believe in random chance. I believe everything (no matter how seemingly trivial events might appear to the observer) happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you should be talking about "Scientists", who go out and look for answers, and do not accept doctrine (Yes more Goddit/permanent ignorance.) as an answer.
> 
> As to atheists, they/we prefer the overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution rather than No-evidence god/s as an answer.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I pray to GOD and get responses. You pray to your scientists if you like. There is no evidence that they care one way or the other. All the evidence I see "overwhelming" shows me that there was once a terrible FLOOD.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this exactly as atheists are ---- because they are unaware how GOD works, they made out like HE simply doesn't exist --- since GOD seemingly doesn't do their bidding?  Personally, I do not believe in random chance. I believe everything (no matter how seemingly trivial events might appear to the observer) happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you should be talking about "Scientists", who go out and look for answers, and do not accept doctrine (Yes more Goddit/permanent ignorance.) as an answer.
> 
> As to atheists, they/we prefer the overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution rather than No-evidence god/s as an answer.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I pray to GOD and get responses. You pray to your scientists if you like. There is no evidence that they care one way or the other. All the evidence I see "overwhelming" shows me that there was once a terrible FLOOD.
Click to expand...


I prayed to the gods of science and got a response. Antibiotics cured my bronchitis last year.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> I pray to GOD and get responses. You pray to your scientists if you like. There is no evidence that they care one way or the other. All the evidence I see "overwhelming" shows me that there was once a terrible FLOOD.


False. You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right.
I do not ''pray" for science. I and the rest of the world depend on them for the progress of mankind and our knowledge.
Go did not create Medicines, toilets, Air Conditioning, and TV sets.


`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> False. You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right.
> I do not ''pray" for science. I and the rest of the world depend on them for the progress of mankind and our knowledge.
> Go did not create Medicines, toilets, Air Conditioning, and TV sets.



Wrong again.  What a liar you are.  There is only one God in the Bible.  You can question why follow the Bible?  It's first one discovered and written by different peoples in different lines of work.  They aren't related.  Also, it took over 1500 years to write it and compile it.  Later, we found science backs it up.

Next, we found the Antibible of evolution.  That was mostly written over 170 years, but could be much older from the Tower of Babel.  How could it contradict _everything_  that the God of the Bible said?  It could not possibly be a coincidence.

Christians also do not "pray" for science.  We depend on it for progress of humankind and our knowledge, but don't trust evolution which is the science of atheism.  Both are faith based and only one can be right.  The Bible prophecizes that who will be right will be determined when Jesus returns again to Earth.  Everything will be settled on Earth and then final judgement.  Be prepared for yours sinner.

God did mention some of things that medicine, toilets, and others are based on.  It's part of how science backs up the Bible.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Wrong again.  What a liar you are.  There is only one God in the Bible.  You can question why follow the Bible?  It's first one discovered and written by different peoples in different lines of work.  They aren't related.  Also, it took over 1500 years to write it and compile it.  Later, we found science backs it up.
> 
> Next, we found the Antibible of evolution.  That was mostly written over 170 years, but could be much older from the Tower of Babel.  How could it contradict _everything_  that the God of the Bible said?  It could not possibly be a coincidence.
> 
> Christians also do not "pray" for science.  We depend on it for progress of humankind and our knowledge, but don't trust evolution which is the science of atheism.  Both are faith based and only one can be right.  The Bible prophecizes that who will be right will be determined when Jesus returns again to Earth.  Everything will be settled on Earth and then final judgement.  Be prepared for yours sinner.
> 
> God did mention some of things that medicine, toilets, and others are based on.  It's part of how science backs up the Bible.


As I said you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt...
There are hundreds/thousands of gods. You know, most of the rest of the planet who are just as sure as you are they are right.
But at least 75% off you are wrong. Probably all.

God/god of the Bible MYTH of one of those religions is Not evidence.
It's BULLSHIT THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCIENCE SECTION.
It's IDIOTIC Babbling/PROSEYTIZATION with no more evidence than any other god.. which is to say... ZERO

`

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> As I said you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt...
> There are hundreds/thousands of gods. You know, most of the rest of the planet who are just as sure as you are they are right.
> But at least 75% off you are wrong. Probably all.
> 
> God/god of the Bible MYTH of one of those religions is Not evidence.
> It's BULLSHIT THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCIENCE SECTION.
> It's IDIOTIC Babbling/PROSEYTIZATION with no more evidence than any other god.. which is to say... ZERO



How could I be lying when I told you like it is from the Bible?  When you quote mine me and say "you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt..." you should direct it to the one who wrote the Antibible.  Are you afraid?  You'll be even more afraid in the next life.

You're the one who claimed, " You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right."  That's why I got involved.  You're the one who brought "one of thousands of 'gods'" in.

Anyway, the science backs up what God said and hygiene about washing one's hands, washing your feet, washing your clothers, washing before eating, etc. in order to take care of our bodies because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Washing hands and wearing a face covering is part of what we do to fight the coronavirus, not get it, and spread it.  Instead we get people, usually liberals, who proselytize, that the government is forcing us to wear masks.  How idiotic and anti-science is that?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt...
> There are hundreds/thousands of gods. You know, most of the rest of the planet who are just as sure as you are they are right.
> But at least 75% off you are wrong. Probably all.
> 
> God/god of the Bible MYTH of one of those religions is Not evidence.
> It's BULLSHIT THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCIENCE SECTION.
> It's IDIOTIC Babbling/PROSEYTIZATION with no more evidence than any other god.. which is to say... ZERO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could I be lying when I told you like it is from the Bible?  When you quote mine me and say "you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt..." you should direct it to the one who wrote the Antibible.  Are you afraid?  You'll be even more afraid in the next life.
> 
> You're the one who claimed, " You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right."  That's why I got involved.  You're the one who brought "one of thousands of 'gods'" in.
> 
> Anyway, the science backs up what God said and hygiene about washing one's hands, washing your feet, washing your clothers, washing before eating, etc. in order to take care of our bodies because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Washing hands and wearing a face covering is part of what we do to fight the coronavirus, not get it, and spread it.  Instead we get people, usually liberals, who proselytize, that the government is forcing us to wear masks.  How idiotic and anti-science is that?
Click to expand...

The usual James Blond IDIOTIC post::

*CIRCULAR REASONING*
circulus in demonstrando
......
Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.

This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*
......
Example #2:

*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.
This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt...
> There are hundreds/thousands of gods. You know, most of the rest of the planet who are just as sure as you are they are right.
> But at least 75% off you are wrong. Probably all.
> 
> God/god of the Bible MYTH of one of those religions is Not evidence.
> It's BULLSHIT THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCIENCE SECTION.
> It's IDIOTIC Babbling/PROSEYTIZATION with no more evidence than any other god.. which is to say... ZERO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could I be lying when I told you like it is from the Bible?  When you quote mine me and say "you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt..." you should direct it to the one who wrote the Antibible.  Are you afraid?  You'll be even more afraid in the next life.
> 
> You're the one who claimed, " You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right."  That's why I got involved.  You're the one who brought "one of thousands of 'gods'" in.
> 
> Anyway, the science backs up what God said and hygiene about washing one's hands, washing your feet, washing your clothers, washing before eating, etc. in order to take care of our bodies because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Washing hands and wearing a face covering is part of what we do to fight the coronavirus, not get it, and spread it.  Instead we get people, usually liberals, who proselytize, that the government is forcing us to wear masks.  How idiotic and anti-science is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The usual James Blond IDIOTIC post::
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> `
Click to expand...


You just quote mined me b/c that's not what I said.  I repeat,  "It is you who should say "you Lying, Dishonest, STUPID, Piece of shlt..." to the one who wrote the Antibible -- Satan.  How else could it contradict everything that is good?  I mean you have your science of atheism and it takes _faith_ to believe it. You believe fossil record shows descent from modification and descent from common ancestor, but fossilization is rare and the fossils are missing the transitional steps. You believe the tree of life, but we find it is more like the bushes of life. Thus, it is you who believe in fairy tales and the fake science of atheism. Science does not back up evolution unless you make the evidence fit the theory as well as make up some huge whopping lies to make everything fit. We ask for evidence as well as experiments using the scientific method, but you have none .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right.
> I do not ''pray" for science. I and the rest of the world depend on them for the progress of mankind and our knowledge.
> Go did not create Medicines, toilets, Air Conditioning, and TV sets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  What a liar you are.  There is only one God in the Bible.  You can question why follow the Bible?  It's first one discovered and written by different peoples in different lines of work.  They aren't related.  Also, it took over 1500 years to write it and compile it.  Later, we found science backs it up.
> 
> Next, we found the Antibible of evolution.  That was mostly written over 170 years, but could be much older from the Tower of Babel.  How could it contradict _everything_  that the God of the Bible said?  It could not possibly be a coincidence.
> 
> Christians also do not "pray" for science.  We depend on it for progress of humankind and our knowledge, but don't trust evolution which is the science of atheism.  Both are faith based and only one can be right.  The Bible prophecizes that who will be right will be determined when Jesus returns again to Earth.  Everything will be settled on Earth and then final judgement.  Be prepared for yours sinner.
> 
> God did mention some of things that medicine, toilets, and others are based on.  It's part of how science backs up the Bible.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know *exactly* what book you believe the satan character has written. It's a really outlandish conspiracy theory and one you promote often. 

What book did 'satan'' write?

Who published that book?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right.
> I do not ''pray" for science. I and the rest of the world depend on them for the progress of mankind and our knowledge.
> Go did not create Medicines, toilets, Air Conditioning, and TV sets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  What a liar you are.  There is only one God in the Bible.  You can question why follow the Bible?  It's first one discovered and written by different peoples in different lines of work.  They aren't related.  Also, it took over 1500 years to write it and compile it.  Later, we found science backs it up.
> 
> Next, we found the Antibible of evolution.  That was mostly written over 170 years, but could be much older from the Tower of Babel.  How could it contradict _everything_  that the God of the Bible said?  It could not possibly be a coincidence.
> 
> Christians also do not "pray" for science.  We depend on it for progress of humankind and our knowledge, but don't trust evolution which is the science of atheism.  Both are faith based and only one can be right.  The Bible prophecizes that who will be right will be determined when Jesus returns again to Earth.  Everything will be settled on Earth and then final judgement.  Be prepared for yours sinner.
> 
> God did mention some of things that medicine, toilets, and others are based on.  It's part of how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm curious to know *exactly* what book you believe the satan character has written. It's a really outlandish conspiracy theory and one you promote often.
> 
> What book did 'satan'' write?
> 
> Who published that book?
Click to expand...


Books by Satan.  It could be one book if someone compiled a summary from each.  He influenced the following writers throughout the years.  Didn't you mention On the Origin of Species by Darwin?  We also had Principles of Geology by Lyell.  Theory of the Earth by Hutton.  Before that we had spontaneous generation being preached by Aristotle.  There were Chinese, Roman, Islamic, and more.  We even had Christian thinkers who believed in an old Earth starting in the Middle Ages -- History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right.
> I do not ''pray" for science. I and the rest of the world depend on them for the progress of mankind and our knowledge.
> Go did not create Medicines, toilets, Air Conditioning, and TV sets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  What a liar you are.  There is only one God in the Bible.  You can question why follow the Bible?  It's first one discovered and written by different peoples in different lines of work.  They aren't related.  Also, it took over 1500 years to write it and compile it.  Later, we found science backs it up.
> 
> Next, we found the Antibible of evolution.  That was mostly written over 170 years, but could be much older from the Tower of Babel.  How could it contradict _everything_  that the God of the Bible said?  It could not possibly be a coincidence.
> 
> Christians also do not "pray" for science.  We depend on it for progress of humankind and our knowledge, but don't trust evolution which is the science of atheism.  Both are faith based and only one can be right.  The Bible prophecizes that who will be right will be determined when Jesus returns again to Earth.  Everything will be settled on Earth and then final judgement.  Be prepared for yours sinner.
> 
> God did mention some of things that medicine, toilets, and others are based on.  It's part of how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm curious to know *exactly* what book you believe the satan character has written. It's a really outlandish conspiracy theory and one you promote often.
> 
> What book did 'satan'' write?
> 
> Who published that book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Books by Satan.  It could be one book if someone compiled a summary from each.  He influenced the following writers throughout the years.  Didn't you mention On the Origin of Species by Darwin?  We also had Principles of Geology by Lyell.  Theory of the Earth by Hutton.  Before that we had spontaneous generation being preached by Aristotle.  There were Chinese, Roman, Islamic, and more.  We even had Christian thinkers who believed in an old Earth starting in the Middle Ages -- History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Ok. So your earlier claim that the ''satan'' character wrote something you call an antibible is obviously not true.

Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?

How much time, exactly, do you spend reading supermarket tabloids?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?



No question.  The Antibible contradicts everything that God said in the Bible.  No way could that be a coincidence.  It goes to show Satan's rebellious nature.  We have heated arguments between creation science vs. science of atheism here in S&T.  It's easily the #1 argument.

You can't figure these things out and explain it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question.  The Antibible contradicts everything that God said in the Bible.  No way could that be a coincidence.  It goes to show Satan's rebellious nature.  We have heated arguments between creation science vs. science of atheism here in S&T.  It's easily the #1 argument.
> 
> You can't figure these things out and explain it.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is this ''antibible'' you're on about?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question.  The Antibible contradicts everything that God said in the Bible.  No way could that be a coincidence.  It goes to show Satan's rebellious nature.  We have heated arguments between creation science vs. science of atheism here in S&T.  It's easily the #1 argument.
> 
> You can't figure these things out and explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, is this ''antibible'' you're on about?
Click to expand...


_*Thus, when you add all the contradictions up, is this evidence for Satan?  Does this convince you that Satan is causing it? Bad stuff usually does not happen by coincidence.*_

Here are some things that evolution states that contradict what is in the Bible..

GOD >>>>> SATAN
Said it first in the Bible over 1500 years (can not change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years of evolutionary science (hypothesis and theories can change)
Universe >>>>> Multiverse
Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temperature and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Satan is masquerader of light; Things happen through invisible dark energy, dark matter but no evidence for it
Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question.  The Antibible contradicts everything that God said in the Bible.  No way could that be a coincidence.  It goes to show Satan's rebellious nature.  We have heated arguments between creation science vs. science of atheism here in S&T.  It's easily the #1 argument.
> 
> You can't figure these things out and explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, is this ''antibible'' you're on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Thus, when you add all the contradictions up, is this evidence for Satan?  Does this convince you that Satan is causing it? Bad stuff usually does not happen by coincidence.*_
> 
> Here are some things that evolution states that contradict what is in the Bible..
> 
> GOD >>>>> SATAN
> Said it first in the Bible over 1500 years (can not change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years of evolutionary science (hypothesis and theories can change)
> Universe >>>>> Multiverse
> Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temperature and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
> 6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
> Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
> Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
> Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
> Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
> Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
> God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
> God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Satan is masquerader of light; Things happen through invisible dark energy, dark matter but no evidence for it
> Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
> Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
> Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)
Click to expand...

Well, let's address your meltdown from the beginning, shall we?

Where does evolution state ''GOD >>>>> SATAN''?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this exactly as atheists are ---- because they are unaware how GOD works, they made out like HE simply doesn't exist --- since GOD seemingly doesn't do their bidding?  Personally, I do not believe in random chance. I believe everything (no matter how seemingly trivial events might appear to the observer) happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you should be talking about "Scientists", who go out and look for answers, and do not accept doctrine (Yes more Goddit/permanent ignorance.) as an answer.
> 
> As to atheists, they/we prefer the overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution rather than No-evidence god/s as an answer.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I pray to GOD and get responses. You pray to your scientists if you like. There is no evidence that they care one way or the other. All the evidence I see "overwhelming" shows me that there was once a terrible FLOOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prayed to the gods of science and got a response. Antibiotics cured my bronchitis last year.
Click to expand...

GOD provided the knowledge to design and fabricate medications, the understanding of the doctors to administer the correct one, and mercifully allowed/caused your body to respond with a positive response. And you really don't know how many people may have been praying to GOD for you to be returned to health...


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question.  The Antibible contradicts everything that God said in the Bible.  No way could that be a coincidence.  It goes to show Satan's rebellious nature.  We have heated arguments between creation science vs. science of atheism here in S&T.  It's easily the #1 argument.
> 
> You can't figure these things out and explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, is this ''antibible'' you're on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Thus, when you add all the contradictions up, is this evidence for Satan?  Does this convince you that Satan is causing it? Bad stuff usually does not happen by coincidence.*_
> 
> Here are some things that evolution states that contradict what is in the Bible..
> 
> GOD >>>>> SATAN
> Said it first in the Bible over 1500 years (can not change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years of evolutionary science (hypothesis and theories can change)
> Universe >>>>> Multiverse
> Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temperature and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
> 6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
> Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
> Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
> Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
> Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
> Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
> God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
> God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Satan is masquerader of light; Things happen through invisible dark energy, dark matter but no evidence for it
> Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
> Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
> Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's address your meltdown from the beginning, shall we?
> 
> Where does evolution state ''GOD >>>>> SATAN''?
Click to expand...

Satan corrupts but GOD in HIS grace and mercy intervenes.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this exactly as atheists are ---- because they are unaware how GOD works, they made out like HE simply doesn't exist --- since GOD seemingly doesn't do their bidding?  Personally, I do not believe in random chance. I believe everything (no matter how seemingly trivial events might appear to the observer) happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you should be talking about "Scientists", who go out and look for answers, and do not accept doctrine (Yes more Goddit/permanent ignorance.) as an answer.
> 
> As to atheists, they/we prefer the overwhelming EVIDENCE for Evolution rather than No-evidence god/s as an answer.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I pray to GOD and get responses. You pray to your scientists if you like. There is no evidence that they care one way or the other. All the evidence I see "overwhelming" shows me that there was once a terrible FLOOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prayed to the gods of science and got a response. Antibiotics cured my bronchitis last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD provided the knowledge to design and fabricate medications, the understanding of the doctors to administer the correct one, and mercifully allowed/caused your body to respond with a positive response. And you really don't know how many people may have been praying to GOD for you to be returned to health...
Click to expand...

There's no reason to believe that any gods provided knowledge in the development of medicines. We can see a clear progression of human understanding of biology and chemistry that lead to the development of medicines.

An obvious question would be: why would the gods make humans and animals alike with flaws in their biology making them susceptible to disease? This suggests that the gods designed and fabricated disease to attack and kill the humans and animals they ''designed''.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're claiming that the ''satan'' somehow influenced writers. What, exactly, was the influence exerted by satan and what, exactly, did satan do to influence people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question.  The Antibible contradicts everything that God said in the Bible.  No way could that be a coincidence.  It goes to show Satan's rebellious nature.  We have heated arguments between creation science vs. science of atheism here in S&T.  It's easily the #1 argument.
> 
> You can't figure these things out and explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, is this ''antibible'' you're on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Thus, when you add all the contradictions up, is this evidence for Satan?  Does this convince you that Satan is causing it? Bad stuff usually does not happen by coincidence.*_
> 
> Here are some things that evolution states that contradict what is in the Bible..
> 
> GOD >>>>> SATAN
> Said it first in the Bible over 1500 years (can not change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years of evolutionary science (hypothesis and theories can change)
> Universe >>>>> Multiverse
> Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temperature and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
> 6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
> Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
> Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
> Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
> Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
> Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
> God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
> God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Satan is masquerader of light; Things happen through invisible dark energy, dark matter but no evidence for it
> Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
> Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
> Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's address your meltdown from the beginning, shall we?
> 
> Where does evolution state ''GOD >>>>> SATAN''?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Satan corrupts but GOD in HIS grace and mercy intervenes.
Click to expand...

I think it's more like humans make poor decisions for a variety of reasons. I don't see the gods intervening with grace and mercy when people are killed every day as a result of their poor choices or the poor choices of others. 

It's not ''satan'' getting involved in the killing / crime committed by people with mental health issues for example. That's a function of people who need treatment and /or incarceration to separate them from society.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Where does evolution state ''GOD >>>>> SATAN''?



I just used the arrows to show the differences such as "versus."  However, now that you bring it up God showed he was more powerful by sending Satan down to Earth at the speed of light and creating hell as a place for him and his followers in the afterlife.  We know that God was greater than Satan in early evolutionary thinking by the Greeks and Romans as its laws stated atheists were to be put to death.  I don't think the death penalty for atheism happened in India, but I think the early evolutionary thinking of nature only subscribers were countered with beliefs of karma to show rewards vs. penalties.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does evolution state ''GOD >>>>> SATAN''?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used the arrows to show the differences such as "versus."  However, now that you bring it up God showed he was more powerful by sending Satan down to Earth at the speed of light and creating hell as a place for him and his followers in the afterlife.  We know that God was greater than Satan in early evolutionary thinking by the Greeks and Romans as its laws stated atheists were to be put to death.  I don't think the death penalty for atheism happened in India, but I think the early evolutionary thinking of nature only subscribers were countered with beliefs of karma to show rewards vs. penalties.
Click to expand...

Your imagined gods are clearly not more powerful than the satan character. The inventors of those characters made that clear within the fables they wrote.


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pray to GOD and get responses. You pray to your scientists if you like. There is no evidence that they care one way or the other. All the evidence I see "overwhelming" shows me that there was once a terrible FLOOD.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You pray to one of thousands of 'gods', 99.9% of which are wrong even if one is right.
> I do not ''pray" for science. I and the rest of the world depend on them for the progress of mankind and our knowledge.
> Go did not create Medicines, toilets, Air Conditioning, and TV sets.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration. And look at all such inventions and you will see that everyone of them was CREATED and not one of them needed any knowledge of EVOLUTION to bring them into reality. Was Edison an evolutionist? Did he care one way or another? Was Tesla an evolutionist? Did he care? Was Sir Thomas Crapper an evolutionist? Did he care? Was Louis Pasteur an evolutionist? Did he care? One can certainly raise and breed sheep, goats, cattle, cats and dogs --- do it very well, and not ever hear anything regarding evolution. And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob. He was breeding herds literally thousands of years before the word "evolution"was even contrived...  It doesn't take a theory to create a stained glass window or write a novel ---- it takes inspiration and a willingness to ponder the possibilities that come into one's mind.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*


CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!

*CIRCULAR REASONING*
circulus in demonstrando
......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​

`


----------



## cnm

PoliticalChic said:


> I win again, huh?


Only in PolemicalShriek.


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*
> 
> 
> 
> CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?


----------



## PoliticalChic

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*
> 
> 
> 
> CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?
Click to expand...



Of course.


“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, _In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life_


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*
> 
> 
> 
> CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, _In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life_
Click to expand...


The above is another “quote” taken from Harun Yahya. Here again, the “quote miner” takes a “quote” in isolation from the greater topic. 

Here is a link to Gee’s book. I’ll let the reader decide the context.









						The Accidental Species
					

The idea of a missing link between humanity and our animal ancestors predates evolution and popular science and actually has religious roots in the deist concept of the Great Chain of Being. Yet, the metaphor has lodged itself in the contemporary imagination, and new fossil discoveries are often...



					books.google.com


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*
> 
> 
> 
> CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, _In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life_
Click to expand...


ID’iot creationist Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee. Even if it weren't obvious from understanding biological evolution which the hyper-religious “quote-miners” do not, I can figure this out by consulting the words of... Henry Gee. He has become so frustrated at the persistent misrepresentation of his work, he finally felt compelled to




			https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/creationism/NCSE_2001_PBS_Evolution_series.pdf
		


As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*
> 
> 
> 
> CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, _In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationist Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee. Even if it weren't obvious from understanding biological evolution which the hyper-religious “quote-miners” do not, I can figure this out by consulting the words of... Henry Gee. He has become so frustrated at the persistent misrepresentation of his work, he finally felt compelled to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/creationism/NCSE_2001_PBS_Evolution_series.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
Click to expand...

We already know how you feel; however, don't *evilutionuts* (I did this to mimic your comic relief) do the very same thing. They reject a CREATOR because HE is immaterial. They have built theories of exclusion. They ignore written history. They ridicule personal character rather than stick to the data and interpretation of the data. They even hide data and objects that contradict their research rather than incorporating such things. I don't see creationists doing that; however, they do bring up the weakest points of the opposition and expound on them.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is that GOD provided the inspiration.
> ...... And if you don't believe me, read the story in the Bible of Jacob.....*
> 
> 
> 
> CLASSIC CIRCLE JERK!
> 
> *CIRCULAR REASONING*
> circulus in demonstrando
> ......​Description: A type of reasoning in which *the Proposition is Supported by the Premises, which is Supported by the Proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.*​​*This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.*​......​Example #2:​​*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*​​Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, _In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationist Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee. Even if it weren't obvious from understanding biological evolution which the hyper-religious “quote-miners” do not, I can figure this out by consulting the words of... Henry Gee. He has become so frustrated at the persistent misrepresentation of his work, he finally felt compelled to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/creationism/NCSE_2001_PBS_Evolution_series.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already know how you feel; however, don't *evilutionuts* (I did this to mimic your comic relief) do the very same thing. They reject a CREATOR because HE is immaterial. They have built theories of exclusion. They ignore written history. They ridicule personal character rather than stick to the data and interpretation of the data. They even hide data and objects that contradict their research rather than incorporating such things. I don't see creationists doing that; however, they do bring up the weakest points of the opposition and expound on them.
Click to expand...


Unless you believe in the gods of competing religionists, you may have evilutionist tendencies.

All seriousness aside, I think religionists of all stripes and caliber of weapons object to science requiring a standard of demonstration. There is nothing that separates your alleged gods from any of the other versions of gods. Your immaterial gods are no better demonstrated from any of the other immaterial gods.

Science, on the other hand, has methods to test claims and assertions provided those claims and assertions do not rely on an_ a priori _commitment to belief in supernaturalism. Obviously, when you’re dealing with infallible humans, there will be those who for various reasons will attempt to “fudge” the data. The difference that separates appeals to supernaturalism as opposed to rational discourse is that science will peer review.

If you don’t see the creation ministries as the worst offenders of dishonestly manipulating data to suit their agenda, you should read the “Statement of Faith” that is a part to these creation ministries.

Please identify the research facilities, peer reviewed papers and accredited academic programs that creation ministries sponsor at any of the research / teaching universities in the U.S.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?


No you idiot.
You of course know nothing about evolution or even basic science.
plants and animals of similar age are found at same levels of strata worldwide and never found with creatures that aren't.
(the 70mya K-T/meteor impact being marker worldwide)
When Isotopic dating came along like Carbon (C14) dating it just CONFIRMED Evolutions dates.
Now many longer-lived isotopes are used to Confirm dates.






						Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer


And I might add, we have overlapping tree ring dating chains of 10,000 years or more. Older than YEC's 6000 years, and even YOU could understand tree rings. No?

`


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circle reasoning... Isn't that like when a fossil is dated by the strata it is found in and the strata is dated by the fossils found in it... That kind of circular reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> No you idiot.
> You of course know nothing about evolution or even basic science.
> plants and animals of similar age are found at same levels of strata worldwide and never found with creatures that aren't.
> (the 70mya K-T/meteor impact being marker worldwide)
> When Isotopic dating came along like Carbon (C14) dating it just CONFIRMED Evolutions dates.
> Now many longer-lived isotopes are used to Confirm dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Modern dating methods
> 2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> 
> 
> And I might add, we have overlapping tree ring dating chains of 10,000 years or more. Older than YEC's 6000 years, and even YOU could understand tree rings. No?
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You just might wish to consider:








						What is Paleontology? | AMNH
					

Learn about fossils, extremely rare—and valuable—records of the past.




					www.amnh.org
				




As for tree rings going back 10,000 years. Why not further? Let's consider the reality that since GOD created trees, HE would have created some fully grown. Adam and Eve likely looked like a fully mature and healthy couple of 30 years old. So, if GOD created a fully mature human, why wouldn't GOD create some fully mature trees for man to wander among. And as such, certainly they would have possessed rings. The prototype would mimic those that grew later.  Now, the interesting question would be if the rings of those trees with "10,000" year old rings differ in appearance structurally from those that would have grown and matured after the initial CREATION. Might they be more uniform, healthier looking. That would be interesting research. Of course idiots like me like to think outside the preconceived academic box.


----------



## LittleNipper

Of course, might unscrupulous researchers be hiding something to give a lopsided impression that evolution is "factual". More Proof That Dinosaurs Lived with 'Later' Creatures


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee.



"Dr. Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, declares that the ultimate evolutionary icon is to show that man descended from apes.  It is an attempt that, given the lack of evidence, is doomed to failure.  Wells cites Henry Gee, chief science writer for the prestigious science journal, Nature:  To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage [from ape to man] is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."









						Where are the missing links? - Creation Studies Institute
					

MISSING LINKS? Ape-man fossils are rare and very expensive. They are often hidden away while castings, not the original bones of these ape-men, are sold and studied. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Science has said, regarding human evolution, that many scientists are removed from the...




					www.creationstudies.org
				




Nothing wrong with Wells' statement.  He says that it can't be tested.  My complaint is we do not see bipedalism in monkeys today.  Then what we get is the fraudulent transitional fossil thing which we just discussed.  What does Gee say about that?  What has Gee presented so far, i.e. lineage of fossils, to back him up?

I wish you explain briefly or paste and paragraph or two instead of linking whol papers.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Please identify the research facilities, peer reviewed papers and accredited academic programs that creation ministries sponsor at any of the research / teaching universities in the U.S



You've been getting them, but then post stupid asf links to talkorigins which you can't or won't explain in your own words.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You of course know nothing about evolution or even basic science.



Why should we know what you know?  We have to read a link to get what you mean?  Fark that.  You should be able to put together a point or argument based on what you read and have the link back you up.  We don't even get that.  

I basically know about evolution through my UC Berkeley website and when I use it, most of the time I find you and the evos here don't know squat.  It's why you can onl reply to my posts with a smilie.  You're the one who knows nothing about evolution or even basic science, Mr. Smiey .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dr. Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, declares that the ultimate evolutionary icon is to show that man descended from apes.  It is an attempt that, given the lack of evidence, is doomed to failure.  Wells cites Henry Gee, chief science writer for the prestigious science journal, Nature:  To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage [from ape to man] is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the missing links? - Creation Studies Institute
> 
> 
> MISSING LINKS? Ape-man fossils are rare and very expensive. They are often hidden away while castings, not the original bones of these ape-men, are sold and studied. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Science has said, regarding human evolution, that many scientists are removed from the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationstudies.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with Wells' statement.  He says that it can't be tested.  My complaint is we do not see bipedalism in monkeys today.  Then what we get is the fraudulent transitional fossil thing which we just discussed.  What does Gee say about that?  What has Gee presented so far, i.e. lineage of fossils, to back him up?
> 
> I wish you explain briefly or paste and paragraph or two instead of linking whol papers.
Click to expand...

There is no Indication that man descended from apes. The ''man from ape'' claim is one typical for ID'iot creationers lacking any background in science. 

It's a mistake to use ID'iot creationer charlatans as a source to support your religious extremism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify the research facilities, peer reviewed papers and accredited academic programs that creation ministries sponsor at any of the research / teaching universities in the U.S
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been getting them, but then post stupid asf links to talkorigins which you can't or won't explain in your own words.
Click to expand...

Your hope to sidestep the complete lack of research done by ID'iot creationer ministries is obvious. Can you identify a single research paper submitted by the ICR to the journal _Nature_?

Can you identify a single US teaching / research university that sponsors or collaborates with research performed by the charlatans at creation,com?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dr. Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, declares that the ultimate evolutionary icon is to show that man descended from apes.  It is an attempt that, given the lack of evidence, is doomed to failure.  Wells cites Henry Gee, chief science writer for the prestigious science journal, Nature:  To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage [from ape to man] is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the missing links? - Creation Studies Institute
> 
> 
> MISSING LINKS? Ape-man fossils are rare and very expensive. They are often hidden away while castings, not the original bones of these ape-men, are sold and studied. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Science has said, regarding human evolution, that many scientists are removed from the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationstudies.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with Wells' statement.  He says that it can't be tested.  My complaint is we do not see bipedalism in monkeys today.  Then what we get is the fraudulent transitional fossil thing which we just discussed.  What does Gee say about that?  What has Gee presented so far, i.e. lineage of fossils, to back him up?
> 
> I wish you explain briefly or paste and paragraph or two instead of linking whol papers.
Click to expand...

It's really remarkable how the religious extremists all copy and paste the same phony ''quotes''.

The Gee ''quote'' is one you stole from the most extreme of the religious extremists.

ID’iot creationist Jonathan Wells of the Disco’tute is badly misrepresenting Henry Gee. Even if it weren't obvious from understanding biological evolution which the hyper-religious “quote-miners” do not, I can figure this out by consulting the words of Henry Gee. He has become so frustrated at the persistent misrepresentation of his work, he finally felt compelled to clarify his position to refute the false claims made by ID'iot creationers.


https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/creationism/NCSE_2001_PBS_Evolution_series.pdf

_"As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.''_


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
> Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."
> 
> b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.


----------



## abu afak

From Chem Engineer



ChemEngineer said:


> Adaptation is obvious.  Extrapolating adaptation to the extremes you pretend is NOT "fact."  Not remotely.
> But since you pretend that it is, explain the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, including folding.
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16
> 
> “I can think of no other example in all of history  when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research.  People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> I have many more of what YOU call "mentally ill" scientists' quotes.


No doubt you have more LIES/OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES from people who DO Believe in Evo. PLAGIARIZED from those wacked KWEATIONIST Sites.



`


----------



## abu afak

NOT limited to the Sci section..
DISHONEST POS PoliticalShlt does it board-wide.
There is no topic she doesn't pull her OCD QUOTE MINING in.
This from Religion about "Jewish" Ruth Bader Ginsburg.,



PoliticalChic said:


> *...* law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html
> 2. [Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
> 
> 
> 
> 3.* Instead of following the Constitution,* 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges....*.caselaw.*
> 
> "*Christopher Columbus Langdell *....*Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is.* However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called *the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. *The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America.


----------



## itfitzme

abu afak said:


> *Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
> While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.*
> 
> `



Not just that but....

* Exactly 50% of Americans have a below average IQ and level of reading comprehension.*

The 93% to 96% is not surprising as science works, generally, at the 95% confidence level.


----------



## abu afak

*This one an exceptionally DISHONEST beauty as it contains Stephen J Gould
See my signature.*



ChemEngineer said:


> ...“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.”  (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Probabilities (1985)
> “I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.”  (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)
> 
> 
> “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”  (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)
> 
> “Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.”  (Dr. T.H Morgan)
> 
> *“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)*


----------



## Old Rocks

Sunni Man said:


> *Evolution explained
> View attachment 367939*


Makes every bit as much sense as the deities proposed by our major religions. Their vengeful and ignorant Gods are a pox on civilization.


----------



## abu afak

The IDIOT ChemEngineer is one of the all-time quote mining Quacks.
Scores of posts with Out of Context 'quotes.'



ChemEngineer said:


> A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:
> "The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.
> 
> 
> 
> A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.
> 
> 
> *C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!
> 
> 
> The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.
> 
> 
> It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.
> 
> 
> For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.
> 
> 
> *Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).


----------



## abu afak

*ChemEngineBeer is back at it today!*
This time finding old quotes by Democrats about science.
As if we can't find more recent ones by Republicans and Trump alone!~
Not even quote-mining scientists about science.



ChemEngineer said:


> *“*We could use up all of the proven oil reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” - President Jimmy Carter, 1977
> 
> I always had a very vivid and clear sense that men and women were entirely and completely equal, if not more so.- Al Gore
> 
> There is no such thing as other people’s children. - Hillary Clinton
> 
> The simple fact is, every woman must be willing to be recognized as a lesbian to be fully feminine. – National Organization for Women, 1988
> 
> *“*You are breathing the last of the oxygen.” - Liberal extremist (but I repeat myself) on Earth Day, 1970 as shown on 20/20 Jan 23, 2004
> 
> The demand for food had "outrun the productive capacity of the world's farmers. We're going to have to restructure the global economy." - Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute
> 
> "We’ll be 8 degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable." - Ted Turner, April 3, 2008. www.ajc.com
> 
> We have just four months – four months to secure the future of our planet. - U.N. General Secretary Bang Ti Moon, at Inchon, South Korea, August 11, 2009
> 
> _"Guam is seven miles wide at the least widest point. My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated (by 7,000 additional American troops) that it will tip over and capsize." - Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson, as he motioned Guam capsizing with both hands_


----------



## abu afak

The board's foremost DISHONEST quote miner.
In fact he does nothing else.


ChemEngineer said:


> Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
> There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
> The contradictions are NOT "supposed."  They are real and scientific.
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
> 
> “The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
> 
> “Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)
> 
> Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist,  relied upon calculations based on equilibrium thermodynamics:
> *“The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
> The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.”*
> 
> “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
> 
> “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
> 
> “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.”  – Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom,” _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> “. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> “. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.”  (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
> 
> Would you like more?


----------



## abu afak

2 days ago




__





						God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
					

Atheism IS a position, NOT a religion.  Your dogmatic beliefs, attacks against rival religions and your desire for government to implement your morally relativistic desires says otherwise.  No they don't. You guys just have no way to intellectually elevate your magical hooha, so your only option...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






			
				Chem Engineer said:
			
		

> Stephen J Gould is a bald-faced liar.
> There IS no "common conviction" as he pretends and claims.
> The contradictions are NOT "supposed."  They are real and scientific.
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most.






`


----------



## DudleySmith

Don't need to read the thread to know the 'evolution' cultists can't post any chain of evidence for their crackpot theory that some 10's of trillions of positive genetic mutations happened all in a  row for 10 millions years or so and magically humans appeared and migrated around and changed into Asians, negroids, caucasians, mayans, etc. lol

The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' hoax is my favorite hand wave they try to peddle as 'science'.


----------



## Hollie

DudleySmith said:


> Don't need to read the thread to know the 'evolution' cultists can't post any chain of evidence for their crackpot theory that some 10's of trillions of positive genetic mutations happened all in a  row for 10 millions years or so and magically humans appeared and migrated around and changed into Asians, negroids, caucasians, mayans, etc. lol
> 
> The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' hoax is my favorite hand wave they try to peddle as 'science'.


No. The  claimed evidence for biological evolution is a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated and maintained by those evilutionist   atheist scientists. 

For a fee, I can make a presentation at your madrassah showing how the gods magically created all of existence 6,000 years ago.

Post your Visa or Mastercard number and I'll get back to you.


----------



## DudleySmith

Hollie said:


> No. The  claimed evidence for biological evolution is a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated and maintained by those evilutionist   atheist scientists.
> 
> For a fee, I can make a presentation at your madrassah showing how the gods magically created all of existence 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Post your Visa or Mastercard number and I'll get back to you.



You probably do think you're intelligent; most mediocre intellects do.


----------



## Hollie

DudleySmith said:


> You probably do think you're intelligent; most mediocre intellects do.


Intelligent enough to be dissuaded from silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## abu afak

Chem Engineer said:
			
		

> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view:  its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
> 
> “Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
> 
> “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> “I can think of no other example in all of history  when an important scientific theory – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research.  People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)
> 
> “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)
> 
> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
> 
> “The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
> 
> “Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.”  (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)
Click to expand...






__





						The Physics Professor Poses Darwinian Question to Students
					

the discussion is evolution verses design,,  You don't need a "designer" to get a water molecule!!!!!



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

itfitzme said:


> Exactly 50% of Americans have a below average IQ and level of reading comprehension.


Amazing!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DudleySmith said:


> The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' hoax is my favorite hand wave they try to peddle as 'science'.


As if you understand squat about that.


----------



## abu afak

Chem Engineer does NOTHING but DISHONESTLY/NONCONVERSANTLY quote mine.
Now quoting a CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER, not a scientist.





__





						Abandon Darwinian Evolution - It's Patently Racist!
					

Darwin ranked blacks in Africa just slightly above apes.   What a degrading, racist thing to say. After tearing down Confederate monuments, and renaming products CRT zealots call racist, no more Darwinism should ever be taught in schools anywhere to be consistent.  He predicted blacks would soon...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






			
				Chem Emgineer said:
			
		

> Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga warns readers that "one shouldn't look to this book (_*The God Delusion*_) for even-handed and thoughtful commentary. In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding."  One of Dawkins fellow atheists, philosopher and Darwinist advocate Michael Ruse, has said even more harshly, "_*The God Delusion*_ makes me embarrassed to be an atheist..." (_*Answering the New Atheism, *_by Hahn and Wiker, page 3)


----------



## DudleySmith

Hollie said:


> Intelligent enough to be dissuaded from silly conspiracy theories.



lol I didn't post a 'conspiracy theory', but you amuse yourself as you want, you will never be able to post a chain of evidence for your monkey ancestors to humans. It doesn't exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DudleySmith said:


> lol I didn't post a 'conspiracy theory', but you amuse yourself as you want, you will never be able to post a chain of evidence for your monkey ancestors to humans. It doesn't exist.


Yet it does and has convinced the entire scientific community.


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer TROLL again,
His only type of post in the section since he can't write more than a sentence of his own on any topic.



ChemEngineer said:


> If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.
> 
> “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”20
> 
> “The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”22
> 
> 
> 
> One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”18 Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29 *
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
> 
> In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
> 
> Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field *(1)*. At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period *(2)*. During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
> 
> 
> 
> The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *
> 
> Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the statement made in 2008 in _Scientific American Mind: _“Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49
> 
> 
> 
> *Bibliography
> 
> 1. How Did Life Begin?*
> 
> 1. _How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, _by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
> 
> a. _Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, _by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
> 
> 2. _Scientific American, _“A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
> 
> a. _The New York Times, _“A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
> 
> 3. _Scientific American, _June 2007, p. 48.
> 
> 4. _Scientific American, _June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
> 
> 5. _Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, _by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
> 
> 6. NASA’s _Astrobiology Magazine, _“Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
> 
> 7. _Princeton Weekly Bulletin, _“Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, (Princeton University pr/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml), accessed 3/27/2009.
> 
> a. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” Press Release, October 7, 2002, (The official website of the Nobel Prize - NobelPrize.org nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/ press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.
> 
> 8. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.
> 
> 9. _Encyclopædia Britannica, _CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”
> 
> 10. _How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, _p. 32.
> 
> 11. _Molecular Biology of the Cell, _Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989, p. 405.
> 
> 12. _Molecular Human Reproduction, _“The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft, 2009, p. 271.
> 
> 13. _Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, _by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.
> 
> 14. _Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, _pp. 126-127.
> 
> 15. _Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes, _by William F. Martin and Miklós Müller, 2007, p. 21.
> 
> 16. _Brain Matters—Translating Research Into Classroom Practice, _by Pat Wolfe, 2001, p. 16.
> 
> 17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (Please see http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/ LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.
> 
> 18. _Life Script, _by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.
> 
> 19. _Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, _edited by Rune Matthiesen, 2010, p. 49.
> 
> 20. _Scientific American, _“Computing With DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman, August 1998, p. 61.
> 
> 21. _Nano Letters, _“Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005, pp. 925, 929.
> 
> 22. _Genome—The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, _by Matt Ridley, 1999, pp. 7-8.
> 
> 23. _Essential Cell Biology, _Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.
> 
> 24. _Molecular Biology of the Cell, _Fourth Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002, p. 258.
> 
> 25. _No Ordinary Genius—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, _edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.
> 
> a. _New Scientist, _“Second Genesis—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://www.newscientist.com/article/ mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.
> 
> 26. _The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence—A Philosophical Inquiry, _by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.
> 
> 27. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.
> 
> 28. _Intelligent Life in the Universe, _Second Edition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006, p. 125.
> 
> 29. _Biology and Philosophy, _“The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.
> 
> 30. _New Scientist, _“Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.
> 
> 31. _New Scientist, _January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.
> 
> 32. _Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, _“Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.
> 
> 33. _Archaeology, _“The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
> 
> 34. _In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, _by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.
> 
> 35. _Biology and Philosophy, _p. 340.
> 
> 36. _National Geographic, _“Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25.
> 
> 37. _The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, _by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.
> 
> *(Box) What About Human Evolution?*
> 
> 38. _The Human Lineage, _by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.
> 
> 39. _Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, _by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.
> 
> a. _From Lucy to Language, _by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.
> 
> b. _Anthropologie, _XLII/1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of _Homo Habilis _From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53.
> 
> c. _In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, _p. 22.
> 
> 40. _Critique of Anthropology, _Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.
> 
> 41. _Nature, _“A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.
> 
> 42. _Acta Biologica Szegediensis, _Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.
> 
> 43. _New Scientist, _“A Fine Fossil—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.
> 
> 44. _The Guardian, _London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link), accessed 8/25/2009.
> 
> 45. _New Scientist, _May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.
> 
> 46. _Critique of Anthropology, _Volume 29(2), p. 202.
> 
> 47. _Science and Justice, _Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.
> 
> 48. _The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, _by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.
> 
> 49. _Scientific American Mind, _“Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.
> 
> 50. _American Journal of Physical Anthropology, _“How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.
> 
> 51. _Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, _Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.
> 
> a. _Wonderful Life—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, _by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.
> 
> https://www.jw.org/en/library/books...stions/is-it-reasonable-to-believe-the-bible/


----------



## surada

ding said:


> I guess the inference you are making here is that only stupid people believe in a Creator.
> 
> That's not insulting at all.



Do you believe the creation story? Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? If not, why not?


----------



## ding

surada said:


> Do you believe the creation story? Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? If not, why not?


Why would you ask me that?  The universe was created from nothing about 14 billion years ago.  The earth is about 4 billion years old. 

Here's what Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 tell us:

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation; only man has knowledge of good and evil
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation.


----------



## surada

ding said:


> Why would you ask me that?  The universe was created from nothing about 14 billion years ago.  The earth is about 4 billion years old.
> 
> Here's what Genesis Chapters 1 & 2 tell us:
> 
> 1. God created existence
> 2. Everything he created is good
> 3. What he created was done in steps
> 4. Man is a product of that creation
> 5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation; only man has knowledge of good and evil
> 6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
> 7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
> 8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
> 9. Man knows right from wrong
> 10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
> 11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
> 12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
> 13. Pass it down to the next generation.



So who wrote Genesis 850 years after the death of Moses?


----------



## ding

surada said:


> So who wrote Genesis 850 years after the death of Moses?


I believe those accounts were passed down for thousands of years before Moses existed.  So whoever wrote them down were recording what was verbally passed down for thousands of years.


----------



## surada

ding said:


> I believe those accounts were passed down for thousands of years before Moses existed.  So whoever wrote them down were recording what was verbally passed down for thousands of years.



The Jews didn't exist for thousands of years earlier. Look at the dates for Moses and the Exodus.


----------



## ding

surada said:


> The Jews didn't exist for thousands of years earlier. Look at the dates for Moses and the Exodus.


Oh brother  

When did you first realize you were antisemitic?


----------



## surada

ding said:


> Oh brother
> 
> When did you first realize you were antisemitic?



What an ignorant cheap shot.


----------



## ding

surada said:


> What an ignorant cheap shot.


Actually it's based upon reading your posts since you joined.  It's pretty obvious.


----------



## surada

ding said:


> Actually it's based upon reading your posts since you joined.  It's pretty obvious.



I'm not antisemitic at all.. .. quit playing games.

According to historical and Biblical evidence, Abraham was born somewhere in the range of 1852-1872 BCE and died 175 years later (1677-1697). If the 400 years are accounted for differently, these dates could change significantly.

Abraham came from Urfa near Haran... They were Canaanites.


----------



## ding

surada said:


> I'm not antisemitic at all.. .. quit playing games.
> 
> According to historical and Biblical evidence, Abraham was born somewhere in the range of 1852-1872 BCE and died 175 years later (1677-1697). If the 400 years are accounted for differently, these dates could change significantly.
> 
> Abraham came from Urfa near Haran... They were Canaanites.


What's your point?


----------



## ding

The first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Oh brother
> 
> When did you first realize you were antisemitic?


What a sissy dodge. SOP for you, when your madeup stuff collides with reality....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common.


Except for most of the nations on earth at the time.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a sissy dodge. SOP for you, when your madeup stuff collides with reality....


The Jews being the first monotheists isn't made up, dummy.  It's a matter of record.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Except for most of the nations on earth at the time.


Prior to the great migration from Mesopotamia, they all shared a common history in the region.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The Jews being the first monotheists isn't made up, dummy.  It's a matter of record.


And another dodge.... Weak sauce


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Prior to the great migration from Mesopotamia, they all shared a common history in the region.


Haha. All nations? No. I understand that aggrandizing your favorite mythology is a fetish you cannot quite get over, but that is your problem. Nobody has to coddle you by accepting falsities.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And another dodge.... Weak sauce


How so?  Which people or faith do you believe is credited with being the first monotheists?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha. All nations? No. I understand that aggrandizing your favorite mythology is a fetish you cannot quite get over, but that is your problem. Nobody has to coddle you by accepting falsities.


You are having a bad day, aren't you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> How so?  Which people or faith do you believe is credited with being the first monotheists?


Oops, 3 dodges. When do i get to be called antisemitic?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You are having a bad day, aren't you?


Make that 4 dodges.


----------



## surada

ding said:


> What's your point?



No, ding.. There were Natufians in Jericho and the Levant 14,000 years ago. They didn't all migrate from Mesopotamia unless you think the Tower of Babel is real history??


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, 3 dodges. When do i get to be called antisemitic?


So the Jews then, right?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Make that 4 dodges.


So the Jews were the first monotheists, right?


----------



## ding

surada said:


> No, ding.. There were Natufians in Jericho and the Levant 14,000 years ago. They didn't all migrate from Mesopotamia unless you think the Tower of Babel is real history??


The Tower of Babel is the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia.  Prior to that they shared a common culture and heritage.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> So the Jews were the first monotheists, right?


I don't know if that's accurate. Maybe more accurate to say Judaism was the first organized, monotheistic religion that we know of. Surely plenty of people had decided for themselves that there was only one, dominant God before the Jews wrote such a thing down.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't know if that's accurate. Maybe more accurate to say Judaism was the first organized, monotheistic religion that we know of. Surely plenty of people had decided for themselves that there was only one, dominant God before the Jews wrote such a thing down.



Yeah... that guy was Abraham.  And that account was passed down orally.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Yeah... that guy was Abraham.  And that account was passed down orally.


Hmm, no, I don't think anyone could ever say with any certainty that Abraham was the first monotheist. Maybe he was, dunno.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, no, I don't think anyone could ever say with any certainty that Abraham was the first monotheist. Maybe he was, dunno.


There's a written account that says he is.  Are you aware of any other written accounts that make that claim?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> There's a written account that says he is.


So what? there is a written account that said Muhammed flew to heaven on a horse.

"I lifted a car with my pinky!"

And now there is a written account that I lifted a car with my pinky.


----------



## Batcat

Sunni Man said:


> *Evolution explained
> View attachment 367939*


Some are returning to the theory that the universe has always been here. No Big Bang. Everything was always here. No beginning. No end. 









						No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
					

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.




					phys.org
				




_Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity. 

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org._


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? there is a written account that said Muhammed flew to heaven on a horse.
> 
> "I lifted a car with my pinky!"
> 
> And now there is a written account that I lifted a car with my pinky.


We are discussing the first monotheists.  You don't seem willing to attribute Judaism as the source of the first monotheists.  Even though you have no basis for not accepting this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You don't seem willing to attribute Judaism as the source of the first monotheists.


Right, because it may not be true. Others may have decided earlier that there is one dominant god above all others. They would meet the definition of monotheists.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, because it may not be true. Others may have decided earlier that there is one dominant god above all others. They would meet the definition of monotheists.


Wow, that's some messed up logic.  According to that logic nothing is ever true.  

So which was the first known monotheistic religion?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Wow, that's some messed up logic. According to that logic nothing is ever true.


No, according to that logic, we cannot claim to know things we do not actually know. I can see how a faither would miss such a simple idea, given that violation and ignorance of it is central to your magical paradigm.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, according to that logic, we cannot claim to know things we do not actually know. I can see how a faither would miss such a simple idea, given that violation and ignorance of it is central to your magical paradigm.


Cool story.  So which was the first known monotheistic religion?


----------



## Batcat

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? there is a written account that said Muhammed flew to heaven on a horse.
> 
> "I lifted a car with my pinky!"
> 
> And now there is a written account that I lifted a car with my pinky.


Perhaps Muhammad flew to heaven in a UFO.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Cool story.  So which was the first known monotheistic religion?


Sorry, does not argue that its followers or its founder were the first monotheists. 3 times now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Batcat said:


> Perhaps Muhammad flew to heaven in a UFO.


No, it was identified as a winged horse.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, does not argue that its followers or its founder were the first monotheists. 3 times now.


So, your answer is the Jews?

Of course it is.  You can't even bring yourself to say it.

By your logic Albert Einstein may not have been the first person to discover relativity, right?  I mean there could have been someone else before him, right?


----------



## abu afak

* PoliticalChic , he board's foremost practitioner/LIAR with quote mining is back at it.*



PoliticalChic said:


> 7. The warning that Eisenhower provided need be recalled in connection with the following:
> 
> 
> In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.​
> What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?​
> 
> 
> What did Christopher Hitchens write…” God Is Not Great: How _Religion Poisons Everything_!”​Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.​


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> * PoliticalChic , he board's foremost practitioner/LIAR with quote mining is back at it.*





I love getting under the scales of your morons.


----------



## abu afak

Yes PoliticalChick tried a whole ANTI-VAX/anti-science thread under the False Pretense of Eisenhower's famous anti-Military-Industrial complex speech!
With mixed and matched meaningless quotes and conspiracy websites.






						Eisenhower Channeling Orwell
					

1. A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or knowledge in some realm totally distinct from that one in which someone gained celebrity status, awarded by the state media. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Her Second ANTI-VAX (and anti-mask) attempt after he Failed First I busted





						Lulled Into Compliance
					

Got that mask, and vax passport???    1.It certainly reduces your burden when you simply allow others to do your thinking and decision making for you.  During the 19th century, progressivism was born in academia, which posited that there is a sort of individual of a higher level, who would guide...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Was Eisenhower against Vaccines? (which came into Universal use in the 1950s)
NO!

But that's what the DISHONEST POS PoliticalChick tried to make it look like.

She's a DISHONEST and Dangerous anti-science, Right Wing, Creationist, ConspiracYst.

OUTED again.

`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> Yes PoliticalChick tried a whole ANTI-VAX/anti-science thread under the False Pretense of Eisenhower's famous anti-Military-Industrial complex speech!
> With mixed and matched meaningless quotes and conspiracy websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Channeling Orwell
> 
> 
> 1. A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or knowledge in some realm totally distinct from that one in which someone gained celebrity status, awarded by the state media. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her Second ANTI-VAX (and anti-mask) attempt after he Failed First I busted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lulled Into Compliance
> 
> 
> Got that mask, and vax passport???    1.It certainly reduces your burden when you simply allow others to do your thinking and decision making for you.  During the 19th century, progressivism was born in academia, which posited that there is a sort of individual of a higher level, who would guide...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Eisenhower against Vaccines? (which came into Universal use in the 1950s)
> NO!
> 
> But that's what the DISHONEST POS PoliticalChick tried to make it look like.
> 
> She's a DISHONEST and Dangerous anti-science, Right Wing, Creationist, ConspiracYst.
> 
> OUTED again.
> 
> `




I relish the fear I engender in this sort of poster.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> I relish the fear I engender in this sort of poster.


And I relish Outing Dishonest Psychopaths like you with the truth.
And I've kicked your *** too many times to count.
Like white in Rice.
Keep your crap in Politics.
Science is for Truth/Your enemy.
`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> And I relish Outing Dishonest Psychopaths like you with the truth.
> And I've kicked your *** too many times to count.
> Like white in Rice.
> Keep your crap in Politics.
> Science is for Truth/Your enemy.
> `




Calm down, Sméagol, the _*Precious*_ will be yours once the Hobbits are dead.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The serial plagiarist should stick to topics it understands. These topics do not include any scientific topic or  political science topic.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The serial plagiarist should stick to topics it understands. These topics do not include any scientific topic or  political science topic.




I know your sort can't post without lying.....bet you can't find a single example of me ever plagiarizing.

But every Liberal poster lies incessantly: You quote Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> I know your sort can't post without lying.....bet you can't find a single example of me ever plagiarizing.
> 
> But every Liberal poster lies incessantly: You quote Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.


And you try to debunk the most robust scientific theory in history by puking kweationist copypastas on a message board. What a clown.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you try to debunk the most robust scientific theory in history by puking kweationist copypastas on a message board. What a clown.





And an admission that you were simply lying about me ever plagiarizing.

Nor a denial that you do.

That's the pattern with Democrats, as I stated in my Rule #2

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


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> And an admission that you were simply lying about me ever plagiarizing.
> 
> Nor a denial that you do.
> 
> That's the pattern with Democrats, as I stated in my Rule #2
> 
> Rule #2​To know what the Left is *guilty* of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.


I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Everyone here realized you are serial plagiarist after reading one or two posts. Now, nobody reads any of your posts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Everyone here realized you are serial plagiarist after reading one or two posts. Now, nobody reads any of your posts.





Actually, what you have proven is that I never do as you claimed....lied about.

It's the technique of the Left, the Democrats......lie about opponents.

By challenging you to provide same......I pulverized you and yours.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Actually, what you have proven is that I never do as you claimed....lied about.


There you go. Stick to your whining and self-soothing. this whole 'trying to talk about science" thing isn't working out for you. I mean, seriously. You have embarrassed yourself off the planet with your moronic science posts. You don't even belong in this section.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> There you go. Stick to your whining and self-soothing. this whole 'trying to talk about science" thing isn't working out for you. I mean, seriously. You have embarrassed yourself off the planet with your moronic science posts. You don't even belong in this section.




Any examples of plagiarizing yet????


Not yet?


Keep lookin'.....


----------



## james bond

PoliticalChic said:


> I relish the fear I engender in this sort of poster.


I think he still pees in his pants.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> I love getting under the scales of your morons.


I love that you acknowledge being a complete fraud.


----------



## abu afak

> Seymour Flops said:
> I've been criticised on this forum for arguing with other posters about Darwinism while not taking a stance by stating some replacement for Darwinism. So here are my thoughts:
> 
> *1) There is evidence of a designer in life on Earth. That evidence is what reknowned Darwinist Richard Dawkins calls ""appearance of design.""*



Lying as usual. Flops Fraud #327.
This is just classic Quote mining, a way of Lying.
Short quoting or quoting out of context.

3 words is NOT a "quote," it's a snippet that obviously had surroundings, and even suggests the real quote is something contrary like "Despite the* appearance of design*, there is none."
and in fact that is what we have!!
LOL

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
He even uses the word "overwhelming":
*“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does Not see ahead, does Not plan consequences, has NO purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the ILLUSION of design and planning.”* {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Lying as usual. Flops Fraud #327.
> This is just classic Quote mining, a way of Lying.
> Short quoting or quoting out of context.
> 
> 3 words is NOT a "quote," it's a snippet that obviously had surroundings, and even suggests the real quote is something contrary like "Despite the* appearance of design*, there is none."
> and in fact that is what we have!!
> LOL
> 
> “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
> He even uses the word "overwhelming":
> *“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does Not see ahead, does Not plan consequences, has NO purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the ILLUSION of design and planning.”* {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
> 
> `


You moved my quote over to your thread, that hasn't gotten as many replies in 18 months as one of mine gets in 18 days?  Is this supposed to be some creative way to bump your lame thread?

You little sneak!  

If  you hate "quote mining," (otherwise known as "quoting someone,") so much, then tell your cult leaders like Dawkins to stop spouting off with quotes that support intelligent design theory.  

Just answer the simple question:  Is there appearance of design in life on Earth, or not?


----------



## ding

“Biologists must constantly
keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but
rather evolved.”  
Francis Crick


----------



## Seymour Flops

ding said:


> “Biologists must constantly
> keep in mind that what they
> see was not designed, but
> rather evolved.”
> Francis Crick


LoL!

Yeah, they better do that.


----------



## ding

Seymour Flops said:


> LoL!
> 
> Yeah, they better do that.


Why would one need to constantly remind himself of what something wasn't?


----------



## ding




----------



## Seymour Flops

ding said:


> Why would one need to constantly remind himself of what something wasn't?


Right?

According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution.  Why would design even cross their minds?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Right?
> 
> According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution.  Why would design even cross their minds?


And indeed we do.
Almost all fossils ae EXTINCT species.
Poorly "Designed" I guess and now gone.

`

*PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, 
Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' *


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And indeed we do.
> Almost all fossils ae EXTINCT species.
> Poorly "Designed" I guess and now gone.
> 
> `
> 
> *PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.*


Or served their purpose and became obsolete.


----------



## ding

Seymour Flops said:


> Right?
> 
> According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution.  Why would design even cross their minds?


If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.


----------



## abu afak

Another article of Classic Quote Mining by Ding this AM.



ding said:


> *Like I said before, the further in time we get away from Darwin, the more willing evolutionary biologists will be to not ignore the gaping holes in Darwinism.  New evolutionary biologists are not beholding to Darwin and are unemotional when it comes to evaluating the short falls of Darwin's model.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen | Evolution News
> 
> 
> Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionnews.org



Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.

`


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Right?
> 
> According to abu afak biologists should see life riddled with irrefutable evidence of random evolution.  Why would design even cross their minds?


Evolution is not random. Successful species are the result of natural selection that favors those biological organisms which adapt to their environment. Like the stereotypical religious extremist, you argue against what you know nothing of. 

We never see the religious extremists explain why their magical designer gods are such inept and incompetent designers. Religionism (Christianism in this case),  has a credibility problem and that problem begins with Christianism unable, firstly, to make any credible argument for the existence of their polytheistic gods, and secondly, to explain why their gods create such error prone, faulty and incompetent designs.


----------



## Hollie

abu afak said:


> Another article of Classic Quote Mining by Ding this AM.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.
> 
> `


It's not surprising that the anti-science, anti-"Darwinism" cabal is represented by Christianism and its most extreme syndicate. Attacks on biological evolution are laser focused on Darwin and descent with modification. Attacks aimed at Charles Darwin by the Christianers are frequently in connection with some edited, parsed or altered "quote" they mined from a fundamentalist ministry. The Christianers literally have no idea that science, biology, chemistry, paleontology,, etc.  have made remarkable advances in the last 150 years, so much of it strengthening the core precepts that Darwinian theory is based on.

The entirety of Christianism is contradicted by an immensely old planet and billions of years for biological organisms to evolve. Those elements completely deconstruct a 6,000 year old planet. A&E in the magical garden and most importantly, original sin. Absent A&E and original sin, Jesus becomes irrelevant as a "savior", there is no need for redemption, heaven becomes pointless and Christianism is deconstructed.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Another article of Classic Quote Mining by Ding this AM.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.
> 
> `


If only you could show how but you can’t.


----------



## ding

__





						Neutral Theory: The Null Hypothesis of Molecular Evolution
					

In the decades since its introduction, the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data. The neutral theory holds that most variation at the...



					www.nature.com


----------



## Brick Gold

abu afak said:


> Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik.
> Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote mining
> 
> 
> Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote mining* (also *contextomy*) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] *It's a way of Lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.*
> 
> Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
> ...
> Examples
> 
> *Darwin*
> A famous example, possibly one of the _most_ famous examples of quote mining, is the following misquotation of Charles Darwin, where *the bold section is often presented without including the rest of the quote.*
> 
> 
> “”*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.* Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.—Charles Darwin[5]
> 
> ..
> .........


Quoting historical figures was very popular on the early days of the internet, in chat rooms and message boards.  Someone would use a clever quote and then someone would respond with a clever quote.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> I provided several with links and sources, liar.
> 
> Let's rub your ugly face in it:
> 
> Scientists Dispute Darwin
> 
> Clearly Darwin's theory not only does not bear up under scrutiny, but there is evidence that the very opposite of the theory is the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> But the subtext in every one of the threads I post that are anti-Darwinism is this:
> 
> Why is it so important to certain ideologies that students at every level, be indoctrinated with the falsehood, that Darwin's thesis is a proven fact?
> 
> That is the question at issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
> 
> a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
> 
> and
> 
> b..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> But it isn't a fact.
> 
> Certain weak-minded individuals.....you.....believe it is.
> 
> Knowledgeable folks recognize
> 
> a. the fossil record proves it incorrect
> 
> b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another
> 
> c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.
> 
> There are dozens of scientists who have written similar rejections of Darwinism.
> 
> Clearly, there is no reason to support Darwinism being imposed on innocent children.
> 
> It’s clear you have been lied to, used, misled…..the question is why you won’t admit it to yourself. Your anger is due your refusal to allow yourself to admit it.
> 
> Why does your sort become so irate when I present the truth? Is it because you know you’ve been lied to?
> 
> 1.“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more. To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth.” Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> 3. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> 4. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 5. When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
> 
> Communities — Voices and Insights - Washington Times
> 
> 6. "According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
> What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times
> Is that what the fanatics so afraid of??
> 
> 7. "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 8. Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."Michael Behe
> _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996), page 26
> Reference given is to: Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, pp. 379-381
> Which references: American Zoologist, 30:861-875 (1990)
> 
> CRITICS OF DARWINISM
> 
> 9. "*Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. *They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.
> *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
> 
> 10. . "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 11. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata.
> In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00741.x/pdf
> 
> 12. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 13. . 'The Enlightenment' has been given many differing definitions but it was, at its broadest, a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century which *stressed human reasoning over blind faith or obedience *and was thus in contrast with much of the religious and political order of the day, while also encouraging 'scientific' thinking. It was the *belief that that reason can exist separate from civilization, and that ‘enlightened’ necessitates a repudiation of religion.*
> Philips, "The World Turned Upside Down"
> 
> 14. Here's what science was:
> *"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. *It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world *rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.." *
> Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 15. Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the *empirical *way that is* the basis of science*.”
> Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)
> 
> a. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:”
> “If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and* existence?* No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
> 16. Well, then....there are *two versions of science*.
> *Rationalists* claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. *Empiricists *claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
> Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> *Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.*
> And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.
> 
> 17. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> 18. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm
> 
> We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.
> 
> 
> 
> . ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, _The New Evolutionary Timetable_ (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.
> 
> "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, _The Insects_, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," _Quarterly Review of Biology,_ Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.
> 
> "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, _The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210
> 
> 19. “Nor are all biologists. They know better, too. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts, or to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: unpersuasive. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.” The God of the Gaps
> 
> 20. *"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
> Gould wrote "Sudden appearance. In any local area, *a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;* it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.)."
> 
> Seeeeee....just what I've been saying! "...*a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors..."*
> Now...... how to combine
> a. "..*. their descent from a common ancestor..." *
> with.... "* a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”*
> 
> 21. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and *“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” *
> Before Darwin, the consensus was that* species can vary only within certain limits*; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
> Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”_American Scientist_85 (1997): 516-518.
> 22. a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,
> 
> "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology,* there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.* Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that *there is no evidence for evolution...*throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
> (From an April, 2001 article entitled _“Scant Search for the Maker”_ Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
> Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu
> *"... there is no evidence for evolution..."*
> 
> 
> And this{
> 
> b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of *articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation*, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, *Darwinism offers just-so stories *about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space *far removed from biological reality."
> 
> "...just so stories...."*
> 
> 23. "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
> the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
> with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
> 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
> is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
> spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
> and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
> extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
> species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
> surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
> eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
> multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
> SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
> HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
> BYLINE: Alan Linton http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html
> 
> a​24. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”― Henry Gee, _In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life_​25. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, *a zero probability of occurrence* (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is* no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations* (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
> I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.
> 26. In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
> So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found *changes in beak shape!*
> 
> a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know if you need another 30 or so, you buffoon.



Maybe the longest , Lyingest one ever by Dishonest Jehovah's Bltchness.

`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> Maybe the longest , Lyingest one ever by Dishonest Jehovah's Bltchness.
> 
> `




That sort of language is the hallmark of one who has lost the argument.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> That sort of language is the hallmark of one who has lost the argument.


Go head and refute my argument?

Your kind of KNOWING DISHONESTY CANNOT BE DEGRADED ENOUGH.

Out of Context quoting is KNOWINGLY LYING.

THEE #1 CreationcYst specialty.
`


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> *........ Let me know if you need another 30 or so, you buffoon.*



*I'm sure you do.
And of course there are scores more at the Creationist website you PLAGIARIZED them from.
Several have long lists.
We know they aren't from your reading list.*

`


----------



## abu afak

A STUPENDOUSLY Long copy and past of scores of quote mines.

ChemEngineer's ONLY game






						Richard Dawkins' (sorry sage) flawed explanation of the evolution of the eye
					

Prove it.  You're lying and will end up in hell after you die.  You come across as a science illiterate , turd sandwich



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






> *The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion
> 
> The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.
> 
> 
> The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.*
> 
> 
> List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia
> 
> “Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” ” - *Demon Haunted World, *page 29, by Carl Sagan
> 
> “I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics
> 
> “I think as Psalm 19, ‘the heavens proclaim the glory of God,’ that is, God reveals himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some purpose and connection to the world in all aspects of human experience.” – Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics for co-discovery of background cosmic radiation, confirming the Big Bang, or the moment of creation
> _____________________________________
> 
> *The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority*
> 
> If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion. *Torcaso v. Watkins*, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))
> 
> 
> Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Is there a single college with an atheist charter? Of course not.
> 
> Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith. Marriage confers enormous mental and physical health benefits, showing how rational and intelligent it is to marry the opposite sex.
> 
> 
> Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]
> 
> The religious have better mental health into adulthood.
> 
> The abstract for the journal article _Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members_ published in the _Journal of Religion and Health_ indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]
> 
> _Global News_ reported:
> 
> 
> *“*Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found.
> According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]
> 
> People of faith live longer than atheists.
> 
> For the study, a team of Ohio University academics, including associate professor of psychology Christian End, analysed more than 1,500 obituaries from across the US to piece together how the defining features of our lives affect our longevity.
> 
> These records include religious affiliations and marriage details as well as information on activities, hobbies and habits, which can help or hinder our health, not otherwise captured in census data.
> 
> 
> The study, published in _Social Psychological and Personality Science_ today, found that on average people whose obituary mentioned they were religious lived an extra 5.64 years.
> 
> Atheists commit suicide far more often than those of faith, which is clearly not "rational"
> 
> 
> "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:
> 
> "Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."[3]
> 
> 
> The list of atheist shooters and serial killers does not correspond to claims of intellectual superiority and rationality.
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have a long record of being mass shooters and militant atheism in general has a causal association with mass murder.
> 
> Due to this fact, peer reviewed research published in academic journals has found that society-at-large is likely to hold atheists responsible for capital criminal acts and that even atheists are likely to assume that serial killers are fellow atheists.[2][3][4]
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> 
> *“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler
> 
> 
> "...indoctrinating them (scholars) with materialism, atheism, and the theory of evolution - the Chinese Communist Party systematically brainwashed a new generation of students, instilling hatred toward traditional culture. ... the CCP promoted atheism and launched ideological attacks against the belief in god.... using methods of violence and high pressure to suppress, persecute and, eliminate religions including the murder of religious practitioners." - The Epoch Times, July 29, 2019
> 
> 
> Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243*
> 
> 
> The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. – *The Irrational Atheist,* by Vox Day, page 240
> 
> 
> *Irrational Atheism*
> 
> Atheists always claim to be more rational and more intelligent than Christians. They do not provide evidence of their arrogant, pretentious claim, but even if they did, it does not begin to prove their claim that God does not exist. Implied but not stated is the presumption that BECAUSE atheists are much smarter than you are, THEY must be right, and YOU must be wrong. That does not logically follow, and is a clear Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. So the statement of intellectual superiority itself is irrational.
> 
> Atheists claim that "there is no proof" of God. They seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that proof only exists in mathematics. So says mathematics professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.
> 
> His remark is echoed by the late Carl Sagan, a militant agnostic and Leftist, who said, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." Atheists seem to dispute even their beloved Carl Sagan as they insist that they know for certain that Darwin was indisputably right, though it is not known "for certain," according to Sagan, and therefore, what need for God? Atheists Stalin and Hitler agreed wholeheartedly.
> 
> *_____________________________________*
> 
> "Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany." - Adolf Hitler, April 7, 1933
> 
> "Christianity is an invention of sick brains. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. We commence hostilities against the so-called Ten Commandments: the tablets from Sinai are no longer in force." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> “If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.” - Alvin Plantinga
> 
> "An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see...." - *Power to Influence People, *by O.A. Battista
> 
> "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, who not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil and other difficulties have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability...." - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary
> 
> "Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misapprehensions like children who when they fear to go in the dark will sing or whistle to keep their courage...." - Alexander Pope
> 
> “Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. - Vox Day
> 
> “I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” -Abraham Lincoln
> 
> To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." - Ravi Zacharias
> 
> Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. - C.S. Lewis, atheist turned Christian
> 
> “It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan. ” - Calvin Coolidge, speech, Jul. 25, 1924
> 
> La nature a des perfections pour montrer qu’elle est l’image de Dieu, et des défauts pour montrer qu’elle n’en est que l’image. Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image. (Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662)
> 
> 
> You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter. Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has, no consciousness and no will.
> 
> “The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings, resonating through eleven dimensions of hyperspace. That is the mind of God.” – Michio Kaku, www.scienceworldreport.com, June 13, 2016
> 
> “As to the first cause of the universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.” – British Theorist Edward Milne in his treatise on the theory of relativity
> 
> “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million , the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” - Physicist Stephen Hawking
> 
> “The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been designed specifically for us.” – Stephen Hawking
> 
> “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the result of a God who intended to create beings like us.” – Stephen Hawking
> 
> “When I began my career as a cosmologist… I was a convinced atheist. I never imagined that I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true …. straightforward deductions of the laws of physics… I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” – Frank Tipler, professor of mathematical physics
> 
> “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” – Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate
> 
> “I believe I came from God and you believe you came from a monkey and you’ve convinced me you’re right.” – Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon
> 
> 
> “I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” – William Phillips
> 
> “Both religion and science need for their activities a belief in God, and moreover, God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” – Max Planck
> 
> 
> “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.” – Werner Heisenberg
> 
> 
> “The more thoroughly I conduct research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.” – Lord Kelvin
> 
> 
> “Science brings man closer to God.” “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties….” – Louis Pasteur, pasteurization, immunology, confirmed the germ theory of disease
> 
> “I’m afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of youth.” – Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)
> 
> *______________________________*
> 
> 
> “Four Big Bangs” That Kill Atheism
> 
> 
> 
> October 15, 2018 Daniel Currier
> 
> 
> In a recent conversation with an atheist, I challenged him with four major topics his worldview can’t explain. I remembered them by using Frank Pastore's nice mental hook, the “four big bangs” that materialism can’t explain.
> 
> 
> 1. The “Cosmological Big Bang”
> 
> 
> 2. The “Biological Big Bang”
> 
> 
> 3. The “Psychological Big Bang”
> 
> 
> 4. The “Moral Big Bang”
> 
> 
> 
> When atheists try to explain these away, there seems to be much hand waving and “just so” stories. I love lines like, “sure, we don’t know, but at least we’re humble because we admit we don’t know” or “at least we don’t believe in the God of the gaps.”
> 
> 
> 
> But I digress, each of these four items are predicated upon something, almost magically, the popping into existence of things when the wheel of time is spun.
> 
> 
> *1) The “Cosmological Big Bang”*
> 
> This is the most fundamental issue the materialists struggle to explain. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about when the universe started to exist, rather that it did start to exist. Things are much more likely not to exist than to exist. They can’t explain why.
> 
> This “just so story” sounds like this: the universe popped into existence, like “poof”, and then expanded through eons of time. Sometimes the claim is that there was nothing and that nothing turned into everything, as in “no thing” or “not anything” caused it all. Nothing is actually what rocks think about. That radical view takes much faith, more than I can muster. Really, are you afraid a pink elephant just appeared in your fridge and now is eating your salad?
> 
> Others say “nothing” means “something.” Don’t worry if this misnomer confuses you, the rest of us are confused too. If it’s “something,” please stop calling it “nothing,” right? They say this “nothing” was a singularity, or “all the matter in the universe smashed into an incredibly hot, infinitely dense speck of matter.” Or was this “nothing” some sort of quantum vacuum?
> 
> The problem becomes exponentially worse when we understand that the universe is finely tuned. To explain what I mean by fine tuning, think of the International Space Station, or even your car, mower, vacuum or microwave. Even the simplest of these are finely tuned. Many things need to be just right or else the machine does not work. There are many more ways for machines not to work than to work.
> 
> The universe is no different, except for it is exponentially more finely tuned, the most complex structure known. So many constants need to be just right. If not, the universe, all the elements, our solar system, our sun and our earth would not exist. In addition, life on earth would not exist if these constraints were not tuned to be just right.
> 
> Examples of some of these constants include things like the strength of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and the gravitational constant.
> 
> Scientist and agnostic Robert Jastrow, says this in “The Enchanted Loom”:
> 
> “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
> 
> We may disagree with some of his thoughts, but his main point is true; the evidence points to the biblical God. Simply put, from our experience, nothing ever makes something. Everything that begins to exist had a prior cause. Also, the fine tuning of the universe, like carburetors, cars and chainsaws, points to a fine tuner. Finely tuned things ultimately have an intelligent cause.
> 
> *2) The “Biological Big Bang*
> 
> 
> First dead matter, then alive matter, that’s the problem. Am I just to believe that a “poof,” composed of eons of time, created life? We could talk about the debunked “spontaneous generation” hypothesis from history to the modern “abiogenesis” version, but both have the same issue, lacking evidence.
> 
> 
> Paul Davies, a well-known Astrobiologist, says this, “One of the great mysteries of life is how it began. What physical process transformed a nonliving mix of chemicals into something as complex as a living cell?” In a conversation on the Unbelievable radio show, he said we have no naturalistic theory for the origin of life. Anyone who has studied the origin of life will tell you the same. Life always comes from life. Life from non-life is a dead end, pardon the pun.
> 
> 
> Also, you remember the fine tuning of the universe, right? Well, life too is finely tuned. From finely tuned cells, to finely tuned molecular machines, to finely tuned DNA code, to finely tuned molecules and all way to the finely tuned elements, life and its building blocks are finely tuned! Again, fine tuned things have an intelligent cause.
> 
> 
> In addition, life’s microscopic machines are real machines, not metaphors. In biology, we find gears and motors, turbines and generators. These types of machines, from our experience, are always designed.
> 
> 
> We must not forget the information contained in the cells. Again, from our universal experience, meaningful and functional information like this always comes from minds.
> 
> 
> *3) The “Psychological Big Bang”*
> 
> The question is simple, how did consciousness arise? From a bacteria like cell, to a blob brain, to a mind?
> 
> 
> Somehow we acquired the capacity for creativity and consciousness, design and beauty, self-awareness and self-reflection. From proverbs to poems, to meaning and methods, to emotions and economics.
> 
> We have mental abilities, and complementary physical abilities that other organisms don’t have. We love beauty, love the arts and love music. In addition to beauty appreciation, we can make it too.
> 
> We can do complex mathematics, we have a complex language and we have the ability to create complex technology.
> 
> Our technology, as a whole, not only needs intelligent minds to dream and design, but also proper bodies to create. But there is another level too, that is the topic of fire. Most of our technology requires fire in manufacturing. Very few things, if any, were created without the help of fire.
> 
> 
> Here is the interesting part, we are the only creatures on earth that can use fire. Not only do our minds have the ability, but we also have the proper body to make and interact with fire.
> 
> 
> Greased with the ingredient of eons of time, this all seems so much like a fairy-tale for grownups!
> 
> 
> 
> *4) The “Morality Big Bang”*
> 
> Let me get this straight, we were some type of amoral animals, and through another poof of evolutionary generations, we now possess moral sensibilities? Why is it wrong for one Bag-O-Chemicals to bump off another Bag-O-Chemicals? Why is it wrong to torture babies for the fun of it, and right to treat them kindly?
> 
> 
> If our main purpose on earth is to just pass down our genes to the next generation, as many Darwinists say, why the “me too” movement and why is rape so wrong? Oh, am I not supposed to bring up that conundrum? Why do we know those things are bad, wrong and evil? Why is it more wrong for one to try to trip someone maliciously and fail than for one to accidentally trip another? Who cares?
> 
> 
> In an atheistic universe, there is no ultimate morality, except for pragmatic reasons. The only reason we do what is “right” is because it helps us. But that does not make things good or evil! And the “it just helps me” line seems quite selfish, so why would that be good?
> 
> And why is it a good thing to pass on our genes to the next generation? First, who cares if our genetics are passed on or not passed on? Second, the point seems quite circular. It’s good because it’s good. We are reusing moral language to explain the existence of morality.
> 
> *The Monstrous Mountain to Climb*
> 
> 
> Again, each of these four “big bangs” point to God. They are a monstrous mountain to climb, and when the atheist scientist scales them…well, let me quote Robert Jastrow again from his work *God and the Astronomers.*
> 
> 
> “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”


----------



## abu afak

Again : ChemEngineer this time Atheists are Nazis.




ChemEngineer said:


> *Words copied by atheists today, thinking they are "rational" and "intellectual" when in fact, they are little Hitlers:
> 
> "To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler. Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it."** - D. James Kennedy
> 
> "Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany." - Adolf Hitler, April 7, 1933
> 
> "Christianity is an invention of sick brains. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. We commence hostilities against the so-called Ten Commandments: the tablets from Sinai are no longer in force." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” – Adolf Hitler”
> 
> Sounding exactly like atheists today:
> 
> "Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself." — Adolf Hitler*
> 
> *“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler (Often called a Catholic by atheists)*


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Classic out of context serial 'contradictions' by the same Kweationist/ID people who run Discovery InstiStoop.


I knew it.  It's your _stutter_ from your mental illness coming out.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
> While app 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, and 96% of the UK's Royal Academy do not believe in god.*
> 
> `


Your statement goes to show you are SAF.    We know scientists are usually WRONG -- Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic and that this is a positive.  Even Einstein admitted that he was wrong about the universe having a beginning.









						Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic
					

On February 28, 1998, the eminent medical journal The Lancet published an observational study of 12 children: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive development disorder in children. It might not sound sexy, but once the media read beyond the title, into the...




					www.wired.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Your statement goes to show you are SAF.    We know scientists are usually WRONG -- Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic and that this is a positive.  Even Einstein admitted that he was wrong about the universe having a beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic
> 
> 
> On February 28, 1998, the eminent medical journal The Lancet published an observational study of 12 children: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive development disorder in children. It might not sound sexy, but once the media read beyond the title, into the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wired.com


So tell us the twoof about the all-knowing, all-seeing Bible and the Flat Earth.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So tell us the twoof about the all-knowing, all-seeing Bible and the Flat Earth.


Another wrong statement.  I just posted the proof oh FLAT one.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Another wrong statement.  I just posted the proof oh FLAT one.


Where is your pwoof of a Flat Earth?


----------

