# Darwin's Apparatchiks



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why *Darwin's theory of evolution, unsupported by evidence, is so immensely popular in academia* and accepted by the mass of less than informed in society, was established.

The reason is that it was *seen immediately by Friedrich Engels and  Karl Marx* as the 'hook' on which to hang their theory of history, and the final cudgel with which to attack religion and morality. 





So Darwin's theory, the idea that there is no design or direction in nature, no plan, was *"proven" based on the speculation *that an accumulation of random mutations would result in one species emerging as a new one. 
It cannot be overstated that *this has never been shown to be true.* 
In fact, after more than 150 years of trying to prove same, one would have to believe that the preponderance of evidence shows Darwin's theory to be untrue.




Except in those precincts where *Marxism, nihilism, and secularism* hold sway. There, any questioning of the theory is meet with hostility, even aggression, and the loss of careers!






What is interesting, if not dispositive, is a careful *look at the political philosophy of some of the major paleontologists and evolutionary biologists who are defenders of Darwin*. 





1. " *Stephen Jay Gould ultimately may not have been an atheist or a Marxist, but nearly his whole life argues in favor of both positions.*

2. 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."*

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





4. And fellow evolutionist Michael Ruse opined, "Quite openly, one of the leading punctuated equilibrists, Stephen Jay* Gould, admits to his marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."*

5. 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"






6. 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 ....*

7. .... Wilson labeled the organization *"American Marxists." *Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

8. ...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*.





9. 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 &#8212; 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." Let me make a prediction &#8212; this new leftwing "science" organization will be heavily involved in the global warming controversy on the side of big government and the "greening" of America.

10. .*..the "upper class" greens are the new Communists of our era, and they have already decided that "science" is on their side and Western capitalism *must be destroyed in order to save the planet from too much capitalistically produced carbon dioxide."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries


So...any who believe that evolutionary science is objective must be considered.....'child-like.'





Of course* one can be an atheist, a Marxist, a Darwinian...*.as long as one recognizes the underpinnings of one's beliefs. Recognize the result of the French Revolution's attempts to replace religion with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered. Accept Marx's theory of history and economics, but realize that, in the last century, the result of such acceptance was another 100 million human beings slaughtered.

The pithy take-away is that the Swiss-cheese known as *Darwin's theory, wholly unsupported by evidence, is important, not as science..*..but as the necessary ingredient for a theory to prove that that there is no God, or reason for morality, but that only Leftist governing will lead mankind to Utopia here on earth.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 26, 2013)

Now settled science is "communism".

You folks are hilarious.


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 26, 2013)

Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society? 

Sign me _Confused and Conflicted_...


----------



## Sallow (Nov 26, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society?
> 
> Sign me _Confused and Conflicted_...



No.

Welcome to the commie club, Comrade H.

Next up, "round worlders" are fascist!


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Now settled science is "communism".
> 
> You folks are hilarious.



PC will also be emailing applications for membership in the _Flat Earth Society_.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Nov 26, 2013)

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become.  I was so intrigued by Anthropologists.  You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus.  I wanted to be one of those.  So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences.  And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species.  I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms.  I saw that it wasn't so black and white.  When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away.  I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself.  That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days.  And that through Him, we shall have eternal life.  I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds.  To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.  

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events.  The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days.  And a day to God is what?  And a day for God began when and ended when?  God is all powerful.  It is what He makes it to be.  Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension.  Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day.  How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter?  I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Now settled science is "communism".
> 
> You folks are hilarious.





The only thing that is settled is your inability to comprehend.

If it was raining soup you'd be standing outside with a fork.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Now settled science is "communism".
> ...





Why don't you ever confront the OP's?

Is it simply because you're stupid?

Or....you've come to realize that everything I post is absolutely, totally true.



But, between us..... How does it feel being an evolutionary cul de sac?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society?
> 
> Sign me _Confused and Conflicted_...





I have no problem with any beliefs in this connection....

..my contention is that one must know all that goes into a calculation in order to come up with the correct answer.


For example.....those who champion Darwin probably had no knowledge of the connections to communism, and such views from 'evolutionary biologists.'


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You're getting quite desperate. 

How does it feel being a Harun Yahya groupie?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


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







Why don't you ever confront the OP's?
I'd explain it to you, but I left my crayons in my other jacket



Is it simply because you're stupid?

Or....you've come to realize that *everything I post is absolutely, totally true.*



Your stock responses are really boring.....

C'mon....take on the OP so I can rip you to shreds.


That is what you're afraid of.....isn't it.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


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


I actually find your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya to be comedy gold.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Now settled science is "communism".
> ...



Ah so it rains soup now?

Which Christian Scientist told ya that?

Here's a hint.

(It doesn't)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...









Now....don't tell me you've caught the 'Hollie disease'....stupidity?

Where is your attempt to speak to the OP?

Any errors in it?

Would you admit that you were unaware of the links of the proponents to communism, Marxism?

And....admit that these details reinforce my contentions?



Well?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.'  Science is anything BUT settled.  Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe.  When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us.  Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away.  AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years.  Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be.  I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science.  We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory.  Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work.  The FDA only requires that they beat placebo.  We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago.  We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.

We are taught by science that life cannot be generated from inorganic matter, then we are told, 'oh well it DID happen once.'  And there are people who are clueless enough and dense enough to buy that contradictory shit.  Bottom line, we don't really know how life on earth came about.  We also don't know if there is life outside our own solar system, and if there is even how to find it or how to get there.  

I find the board know it alls most boring indeed.  They have it all sewn up in their microscopic little two celled minds and make great haste to label those of us who have a real education in science, and the ability to think critically about such things as religion and the origin of the species as stupid. And yet they cannot cite one single study to show probability that their theory is correct.  Not one.  One theory is as good as another.  None of them have been shown to be scientifically valid.  None of them.  Evolution is not even mathematically possible as shown in another thread. (And those who published this are mainstream scientists completely aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics.)  Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



My goodness. Aren't you the advertisement for fear and ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Actually, it's quite the opposite....

Watch me prove it:
C'mon....take on the OP so I can rip you to shreds.


That is what you're afraid of.....isn't it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.'  Science is anything BUT settled.  Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe.  When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us.  Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away.  AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years.  Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be.  I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science.  We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory.  Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work.  The FDA only requires that they beat placebo.  We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago.  We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.
> 
> We are taught by science that life cannot be generated from inorganic matter, then we are told, 'oh well it DID happen once.'  And there are people who are clueless enough and dense enough to buy that contradictory shit.  Bottom line, we don't really know how life on earth came about.  We also don't know if there is life outside our own solar system, and if there is even how to find it or how to get there.
> 
> I find the board know it alls most boring indeed.  They have it all sewn up in their microscopic little two celled minds and make great haste to label those of us who have a real education in science, and the ability to think critically about such things as religion and the origin of the species as stupid. And yet they cannot cite one single study to show probability that their theory is correct.  Not one.  One theory is as good as another.  None of them have been shown to be scientifically valid.  None of them.  Evolution is not even mathematically possible as shown in another thread. (And those who published this are mainstream scientists completely aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics.)  Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves.





Salmonella used the term 'settled' in the same way Gore did to silence opposition voices.


I've challenged him to actually debate....and.....crickets.


And this:
"Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves."

Exactly!

Their 'science' is accepted based on faith rather than evidence.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.'  Science is anything BUT settled.  Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe.  When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us.  Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away.  AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years.  Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be.  I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science.  We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory.  Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work.  The FDA only requires that they beat placebo.  We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago.  We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.
> ...



Even by your standards of _The Stupid_, that was really, really stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

1. In 1845,  Marx and Engels wrote "The German Ideology," the first mature statement of what became known as historical materialism, writing:

'We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist.'


a. As Peter Heyer writes, &#8220;both the historical character of nature and the natural character of history&#8221; were fundamental to their worldview.
 Peter Heyer, Nature, Human Nature, and Society: Marx, Darwin, Biology and the Human Sciences, p. 49




2. This was *the materialist explanation of the historical character of nature* they knew must be possible. As Engels wrote in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific":

Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically &#8230; she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution.* In this connection, Darwin must be named before all others. He dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings, plants, animals, and man himself, are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years. *
Marx Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p.301.



Here one can see the elation of the communists for Darwin......a view that history/nature has some direction.

For, if it does.....what is the source of that direction.




Of course, *Marx and Engels made a leap too far:*
"... Darwin must be named before all others. He dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof..."


*Darwin's epic work still seeks proof.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

So...how the heck could ridiculous, failed doctrines such as communism and Darwinism have gained such a degree of acceptance???

How??

By infecting the schools...and passing that infection on to unquestioning students.






1.	There are, of course, links between education and professional success, between education and the ability to read and write. And obviously we need well-educated people in order to be able to compete with other countries. But for at least the few generations in the Western world there has been no link between higher education and human decency.


2.	The two greatest evils of the 20th century -- fascism and communism -- were often headed by well-educated individuals. And *communism was supported in the West almost exclusively by intellectuals*. You almost had to be an intellectual in order to support the mass murderers Lenin, Stalin and Mao.




3. Acceptance of these views has become the raison d'être of our schools, and a belief in Darwin is the first requirement. 

 Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing! 

Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been &#8216;brainwashed.&#8221; Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas. 

Brainwashed? 
Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.


	Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. *It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.*


 Universities have become to Leftist thought what a Christian seminary is to Christianity.
 The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians. Dennis Prager, "Still The Best Hope"



a. &#8220;The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.&#8221; The University's Part in Political Life&#8221; (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.


	b. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ANRgcvjkk&feature=fvwrel]Eric Holder D.O.J "We Must Brainwash People About Guns" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 26, 2013)

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered.  That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences.  That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other.  But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it.  But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.
> 
> The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered.  That is how honest theology generally evolves.
> 
> ...



The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time. 

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.
> 
> The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered.  That is how honest theology generally evolves.
> 
> ...







A little more about the political perspective of our evolutionary biologist?


" The photographs that adorn a mans office speak volumes about him. In the office of the late Stephen J. Gould, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, peering down upon that prolific desk, is the *photograph of Vladimir Lenin *(1870-1924), the revolutionary who founded the Communist dictatorship in Russia  a materialistic, godless system."

According to a recent article by Lowell Ponte, a former roving editor for Readers Digest, *the theory of evolution became [Goulds] substitute for religion.* Robert Wright, in his book, The Moral Animal, describes this as the sort of faith that no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question. That is *a strange philosophy for one who called himself a scientist  a term which presupposes someone in a quest for knowledge, whatever its source.*
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/525-stephen-j-gould-1941-2002


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> So...how the heck could ridiculous, failed doctrines such as communism and Darwinism have gained such a degree of acceptance???
> 
> How??
> 
> ...


Evolution is a failed doctrine?

I understand that's what you're taught at the Harun Yahya madrassah, but your goofy pronouncements conflict with the relevant science community. 

Drink the Kool-Aid, dear.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.
> ...





1. You begin with a lie...your usual...."...angry fundamentalists..."

I am neither of those.

But...you are a dunce.




2. Then, you proceed with a prepared speech with a rant about creationists....

....none of which has anything to do with the OP.

Your post is a tribute to Attention Deficit Disorder.

Your incompetence is an inspiration to idiots everywhere.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.
> ...



Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist."  She is anything but.  Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours.  But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre, you are so right.  Having a degree in Anthropology and being an Evangelical Christian, I can tell you that my reconcilliation of the two different theories as being complimentary is met with anger much, much more by those who consider themselves "Darwinistic Snobs" as opposed to Christians.  Their stance that the two are completely at odds with one another cannot be challenged in their mind.  Hollie has no desire to understand or know any Christian fundamentalists or their beliefs for that matter.  She labels Political Chic as one, but I have doubts that she could recognize one if they bit her in the ass.  Political Chic is not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.  Quite enlightening actually.

Score. Match. And Game.  Go home Hollie and practice.  You're obviously outclassed on this one...


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


That was a flaccid attempt on your part to avoid addressing my comments. 

But honestly, I suspected you might. When people use terms such as "Darwinist", they practically shout out their biases and their agenda. 

As to losing credibility, you might try defining your terms here. Are you suggesting that the relevant science community is going to abandon the various science disciplines that support evolution? 

Please identify for us the various teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology in place of Christian fundamentalist notions.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 26, 2013)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become.  I was so intrigued by Anthropologists.  You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus.  I wanted to be one of those.  So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences.  And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species.  I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.
> 
> I saw men, women and children die in my arms.  I saw that it wasn't so black and white.  When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away.  I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself.  That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days.  And that through Him, we shall have eternal life.  I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds.  To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.
> 
> ...



There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories.  There are NONE.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society?
> ...



There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism.

Your post is a ludicrous joke.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> Foxfyre, you are so right.  Having a degree in Anthropology and being an Evangelical Christian, I can tell you that my reconcilliation of the two different theories as being complimentary is met with anger much, much more by those who consider themselves "Darwinistic Snobs" as opposed to Christians.  Their stance that the two are completely at odds with one another cannot be challenged in their mind.  Hollie has no desire to understand or know any Christian fundamentalists or their beliefs for that matter.  She labels Political Chic as one, but I have doubts that she could recognize one if they bit her in the ass.  Political Chic is not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.  Quite enlightening actually.
> 
> Score. Match. And Game.  Go home Hollie and practice.  You're obviously outclassed on this one...



And another angry fundamentalist who sidesteps any attempt at addressing my earlier comments.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.'  Science is anything BUT settled.  Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe.  When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us.  Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away.  AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years.  Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be.  I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science.  We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory.  Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work.  The FDA only requires that they beat placebo.  We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago.  We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.
> 
> We are taught by science that life cannot be generated from inorganic matter, then we are told, 'oh well it DID happen once.'  And there are people who are clueless enough and dense enough to buy that contradictory shit.  Bottom line, we don't really know how life on earth came about.  We also don't know if there is life outside our own solar system, and if there is even how to find it or how to get there.
> 
> I find the board know it alls most boring indeed.  They have it all sewn up in their microscopic little two celled minds and make great haste to label those of us who have a real education in science, and the ability to think critically about such things as religion and the origin of the species as stupid. And yet they cannot cite one single study to show probability that their theory is correct.  Not one.  One theory is as good as another.  None of them have been shown to be scientifically valid.  None of them.  Evolution is not even mathematically possible as shown in another thread. (And those who published this are mainstream scientists completely aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics.)  Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves.



Can't find one study where the theory of evolution has been shown to be scientifically valid?

How about a whole basic college biology textbook?

Would a 600 page biology textbook be enough for you?

Try reading one before spouting your total ignorance.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Fundamentalists do tend to get cranky when their sacred cows are brought out of the stocks. 

Come on PC, show us some more of your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. It gets more laughable by the minute.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> > You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become.  I was so intrigued by Anthropologists.  You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus.  I wanted to be one of those.  So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences.  And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species.  I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.
> ...





No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"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.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"  p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 26, 2013)

Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read it, then sit down and shut up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...





You have made a slight error: 
You are a moron.

Fixed.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...



You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms.  There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...



Oh, cool. PC is now promoting the space alien thing.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...





I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
&#712;sp&#275;s&#275;z,-SH&#275;z/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. 



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population." 
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...





You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful.

As the OP clearly proves you to be in error, either you cannot read, or you cannot comprehend.

Please advise as to which is the case.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



How not surprising. Evolution News & Views. Lovely folks from the fringe creationist / Flat Earth crowd.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...




You act as if stupidity were a virtue

The same problem that you usually evince.

*What difference who said it if you cannot show that it isn't true?*


It is as totally correct as you are totally ignorant.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


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



I have shown it isn't true. 

You haven't disproved it.  

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


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





You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

"The greater part of the debate over Darwin&#8217;s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.

 And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive. 

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that *it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.*
 &#8220;Darwin?&#8221; a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. &#8220;That&#8217;s just the party line.&#8221;
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"


Pretty much says it all......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


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



You behave this way when your fraudulent claims, appeals to fundie cranks and lies are exposed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


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






Beat it, turkey...you've been spanked enough today.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.
> 
> And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> ...



Yes. It does. Quote-mining Berlinski. What a joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Defining terms?  A Darwinist is one who makes a religion of it and declares as ignorant heretic anyone who dares to question any tenet of that religion.  Such people are unwilling to have a reasoned discussion on any component of Darwin's theories, but lash out, accuse, and/or trash anybody who doesn't fully embrace it.  I don't know any teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology though I know a number that are trashing Christian concepts in various ways.  And I know a number of scientists, some who are teaching in universities, who not only question some of Darwin's theories but embrace some concepts of Creationism as well.  To believe Darwin got it wrong sometimes does not dismiss what he got right.

Even Einstein refused to be labeled an "Atheist" because, though he could not accept a concept of a personal God, he definitely saw characteristics in nature that could not be explained by evolutionary biology and embraced a concept of some kind of intelligent design being integrated into the whole.

I am not the least bit threatened by theories of natural selection and made sure that my own kids had a solid grounding in it.  But I also allow the theories to be questioned and challenged because all science should be subject to question and challenge.  I encouraged my kids to question and challenge that and everything else somebody was trying to brainwash them with as fact.  They knew what the prevailing wisdom was/is and they understood that there is really no such thing as completely settled science.  There is no scientific truth that we know everything there is to know about it.  Being trained in critical thinking is quite preferable to brainwashing and indoctrination.

And because Darwin himself and all of science I believe to be creations of God, I won't use religion to dismiss that.  And I won't use Marxist theory or anything else to try to convince people that those who believe in intelligent design or who embrace religious faith are somehow delusional or fanatic or fundamentalist or anti-science.  As USAF said, there is no conflict between science and religion for those of us who are willing to keep an open mind and recognize all the nuances and possibilities.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.
> ...






Must I remind you, only a fool criticizes the source when the statement is true.


Oh....right....you're a fool.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


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



I should remind you that a fool keeps company with fools. 

Berlinski and the creationist / Flat Earth crowd appeals to your sensibilities.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I feel bad on your behalf that your views of science and knowledge are reduced to silly terms such as Darwinist. 

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why scientific facts deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary absolute facts delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about. Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If that is what you got out of my post, I'm not the one folks should be feeling sorry for.  Sheesh.

I might just save this sequence to use in my classes as an example of major non sequitur and disconnect.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.
> 
> The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered.  That is how honest theology generally evolves.
> 
> ...



The big problem with Darwin's theory is that he knew nothing of genetics.  He had no idea  how complex DNA is, nor how impossible until the last number of years, to change.    His theory is based solely on observation of whole organisms and drawing conclusions based upon their similarities.  He didn't even know those organisms had DNA, a blueprint for the organism itself, to decode before it could be understood.

Creationism does not claim to be fact.  Religion is based on faith and nothing more.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered.  That is how honest science generally evolves.
> ...



And how many of those sciences that you spout off have you actually taken.  I'm guessing in the range of the goose egg.  You cannot have organisms without some kind of biogenesis.  So, biogenesis is exceedingly important.  You have no understanding of genetics.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I can't be held responsible for your what you write. I responded to your comments and I'm now left with you trying to excuse your hapless and ill-conceived argument.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I am fairly certain that the scientists who have come to realize that evolution is not possible based upon genetics are not Christians of any stripe.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.'  Science is anything BUT settled.  Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe.  When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us.  Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away.  AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years.  Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be.  I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science.  We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory.  Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work.  The FDA only requires that they beat placebo.  We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago.  We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.
> ...



LOL.  A biology text is not a study.  Name one scientific study which validates evolution.  And for your information, I have more than a few college hours in science - biology, chemistry, organic and inorganic, (strange how they separate those two isn't it), microbiology, anatomy, physiology, advanced pharmacology, advanced psychopharmacology, and advanced pathophysiology, as well as algebra and statistics.  

 Good luck on your Biology 101 class.  Your text will be outdated in just a few years.  Might want to just sell it when you are done.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You make the common mistake of not understanding that the TOE is completely silent on biogenesis, abiogenesis or the beginning of life.

Further, you are welcome to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence regarding the underlying theory is at the highest level. Mans evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. Some of them may even become politically influential. But there is a reason the ID / creationist crowd are dismissed as cranks, because they tell us nothing about what is actually true.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> Read it, then sit down and shut up.



That is nothing more than a 'paper' with no scientific studies cited, only references to other 'papers' with no scientific study cited.

Fail!


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not surprisingly, it is primarily Christians who form the overwhelming majority of the anti-science / ID'iot crowd.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (as it appears to me) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take your comments seriously were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



From the article:



> 5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 You can't be serious.  

None of those instances resulted in a new species.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.
> ...



Learn to use the scroll button.



_References


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. SFAA Table of Contents 

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Multiple Resolutions Regarding Evolution and Creationism. AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society 

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York. 

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton. 

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. 

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 

Geological Society of America (2009) "Evolution." The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Teaching Evolution 

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 

National Academy of Sciences. (2005) multiple statements. Evolution Resources from the National Academies 

National Center for Science Education. (2012) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations." 
 A compilation of statements from 109 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory. 
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations | NCSE 

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272. 

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific. _



FAIL for you.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And there you have it.  Evolution is an *IDEA.*  Nothing more.

And FWIW, you have no idea if I do or do not subscribe to any religion whatsoever.  I have read them all.  I can quote them all.  You should at least take Biology 101 before you assert yourself as some kind of authority, which you definitely are not.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



Those are only citations of 'statements' aka 'papers,' they are not scientific studies.  

God dog!  You are dense.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



That is completely ludicrous.  I could not have practiced in my profession if I were 'anti science.'  I am anti pseudoscience.  A thing which you clearly gobble down like a hog.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Your argument seems best suited for the ID&#8217;iot / creationist crowd. 

Evolution as a fact and a theory is not at issue among the relevant science community. Obviously, it is an issue with you and the IDiot / religious fundamentalist crowd.

Actually, a course in the biological sciences would be a good starting point for you.
Here, I&#8217;ll help you on your road to enlightenment. There does not exist a single species living today for which we have fossils older than about 750 thousand years. We do have _similar_ species that occupied _similar_ environments multiple millions of years ago, but they are not the same species. In fact, I am unaware of any that are even in the same genus, indicating significant anatomical difference. 

Claims coming from ID&#8217;iots originate from the fact that so many creationist have no background in the disciplines they pontificate upon. To them, &#8220;a lung fish is a lung fish.&#8221; 

But to anyone who actually has studied lungfish, that makes about as much sense as saying &#8220;a bat is a bird.&#8221; 

Darwin was meticulous in archiving his notes, writings and correspondence, and none of it reveals any hint of doubts about his theory between the first publication of his book in 1859 and his death 23 years later. And yet, it is a favorite canard of creationists to pretend that somehow, Darwin himself never bought his own theory. In many cases, they have even dishonestly and knowingly edited his writing to say the opposite of his explicit statements. And yet, it would be a meaningless claim, even if it were true. 

One man did not decide that evolution was correct, an entire scientific establishment did. And one man&#8217;s doubts wouldn&#8217;t begin to balance the overwhelming consensus of tens of thousands of other scientists.  The hostility coming from the Christian fundamentalists towards Darwin&#8217;s theory (as opposed to the fact of evolution) is obvious, and yet they still miss the point. Darwin's book did two things: 

It demonstrated the fact of evolution with evidence. 

It provided a theory with which to explain that fact. 

The value of the Scientific Method used by Darwin: testing, modification and eventual theoretical consensus is actually a demonstration of the process by which science takes plausible but imperfect ideas, and makes them better. The point missed by the ID&#8217;iot crationists is that the skeptical attitudes of the greatest scientific minds in biology were fielded to find every possible flaw in Darwin&#8217;s theory they could find. And still, the final result was not &#8220;creationism&#8221; but a theory of evolution that is orders of magnitude more comprehensive and rigorous than Darwin&#8217;s original.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I'm really not interested in your falsified / invented "credentials".


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I can see you are infuriated that the science position is defended by facts and evidence where your ID'iot / creationist notions amount only to failed attacks on evolutionary science.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 26, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I actually find it laughable that the ID'iot / Creationist crowd whines about "scientific studies"

Not surprisingly, real scientists are taking issue with the charlatans at the christian creationist Discovery Institute for their fake "lab" and their fake "research". 

This is one of the many reasons why creationist charlatans don't submit for peer review. Fake science, phony labs and christian creationist charlatans caught yet again in an embarrassing lie.


Behold! The Legendary Intelligent Design Creationism Research Laboratory! » Pharyngula

The Discovery Institute released a video of one of their stars, Ann Gauger, explaining the flaws in population genetics (I put it in quotes because it wasnt a description of the field of population genetics that any competent biologist would recognize). Larry Moran points out the errors. (Sandwalk: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics)

But then, someone noticed something else: the video was fake. It was Ann Gauger, all right, talking in a lab. Again, the quotes are because she was actually talking in front of a green screen, and a stock photo of a lab was spliced in behind her. Oops. It adds comic absurdity on top of the egregious errors in her babbling.

But of course thats exactly what the DI wants. They cant answer for the stupidity of her comments, but they can wave their hands and shout, We do too have a lab! A real lab! And its sciencey and everything! Because, after all, when youre doing cargo cult science, (Cargo cult science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the props are all important, and the substance doesnt matter.


----------



## Chuckt (Nov 26, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> > You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become.  I was so intrigued by Anthropologists.  You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus.  I wanted to be one of those.  So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences.  And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species.  I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.
> ...



The alternate theories are Intelligent Design and Theoretical Physics.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...



ID / Creationism is not at alternate theory. It meet none of the criteria for a scientific theory. And, if were going to be honest in our argumentation, we need to understand that ID / Creationism is simply Christian apologetics in a burqua with a new name.

ID / creationism offerer nothing to refute the vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, there are large collections of transitional fossils which provide a timeline of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, mammals from reptiles, whales from land dwellers etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such connections at the biological and chemical level. 

Similar evidence comes from ecology, geology, anatomy, population genetics and related fields. That's just the outline. But against all the above, creationists counter with "The Gods Did It". Although not every bone from every animal that has lived for millions of years has not been recovered or preserved, the processes of evolution have left behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare, contrast and examine the features and structures of living organisms. Doing so, we find an order to the organisms that establishes a definable hierarchy of characteristics. This was known even before Darwin. We know that skeletal structures of many animals have changed over vast time scales. We can use processes such as carbon dating to establish timelines and compare the fossil evidence at different ages and see how these skeletal structures have changed. We apply these technologies to better understand biology, cell development, genetics, and so on.

The reason why fundie creationist Christians refuse to accept and will ignore the science before them is because they must have a literal Adam and Eve. Genesis, and subsequent scripture, defines all human beings as being born totally depraved with Original Sin, and because of that, the requirement of Salvation through Christ. That was the reason for the crucifixion. This is crucial to fundamentalist Christians and why their hatred and revulsion for science runs so deep. 

Believe what you wish regarding gods, you are free to believe what you like. But you cannot brute force you gods into the realm of science for resolution as science cannot examine the supernatural.


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


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



Cannibalism?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

NoNukes said:


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



Stupidity.

When PC can't cut and paste from Harun Yahya and is forced to assemble words into coherent sentences on her own, she's reduced to stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And stupid, failed attempts at humor.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Try reading the link again.

Scientists documented at least 26 instances of observed speciation in both the wild and the lab.  Everything from evening primroses to fruit flies.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



How did the OP show I was in error?

Scientific fact is apolitical.

The earth revolves around the sun.  That is a scientific fact.  How is that communism?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...






Try understanding the link.

It is bogus....as you are.


In your posts one sees an example of the old saying, one that you so aptly demonstrate: He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



There are literally tens of thousands of studies that validate Evolution.

That you don't understand this proves you are not paying attention in your science classes.

A biology textbook consists of a body of knowledge based on thousands of studies.

The science of genetics alone validates the theory of evolution.

You left yourself wide open.  All I have to do is find just 1 study to make you look like a fool.  That will be a piece of cake.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Try reading it again.  The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...



Intelligent design is not a acientific theory.

Theoretical physics is not a biological theory and does not conflict with the theory of evolution, despite what Creationists mistakenly claim.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Oh I understand it.  And I was able to sum it up in 1 sentence (see also above) that even you should be able to understand.  The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.

Thus debunking your ignorant claim that speciation had never been observed.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 27, 2013)

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Hey Sunshine,
> 
> Here's a study that validates Evolution.
> 
> ...





I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...





Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 27, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Hey Sunshine,
> 
> Here's a study that validates Evolution.
> 
> ...



From the article:



> *To understand the evolution of male ejaculates, it *is essential
> to know how natural and sexual selection determine
> characteristics of these complex mixtures and of their individual
> components.





> Although such models of seminal protein evolution
> are reasonable and appear to explain patterns of evolution
> for at least one specific Acp locus (Wigby and Chapman
> 2005), our results suggest that observed patterns of divergence
> ...



You don't even know what this study is about.  I suggest you get a degree and take research and statistics.  This study does not explain speciation, and it doesn't even address natural selection.

This study is about protein synthesis of male ejaculates in two different insects.  It in no way seeks to explain natural selection, nor does it even address natural selection.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Sunshine,
> ...



Lets be honest. What you post are "quote mines" you copy and paste from Harun Yahya.   

How it is that you are clueless to the fact of evolution is truly remarkable. It can only be willful ignorance that enables you to ignore the relevant science community and its position regarding biological evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


This is your typical pattern of behavior. You cut and paste relentlessly from Harun Yahya and when you're challenged to support any of that nonsense, you retreat to your snide remarks and run for the exits. 

Glad to see you're following your usual pattern of bailing out before being embarassed yet again.


----------



## Peterf (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Come to Sweden PC.    People will flock to listen to you.   You see no one here has ever  met anyone who actually  denies evolution.    You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 27, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



Biologists have a hard time defining what actually constitutes a species, the same way geologists haven't every been able to define a continent and astronomers can't agree on what defines a planet. All that uncertainty does is allow the God Squad types to constantly move the goalposts. Even if one is able to demonstrate evolutionary change resulting in a new species, the ambiguity allows the argument to be shifted so that the demonstration is doesn't apply.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...






It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.




The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.


I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 27, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Hey Sunshine,
> 
> Here's a study that validates Evolution.
> 
> ...


 You did not make Dr. Sunshine look foolish to anyone who knows how careful her words are parsed before she prints them out.

In fact, one of the worst debating techniques one can use in the constant basis is by a continual barrage of character assassination. It makes you look like the assassin, and relieves your smears of any credibility whatever.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What you actually did was make no connection at all between "Darwinism" and atheism, Marxism.

It was another ill conceived thread you dumped into this forum and included o.ly your usual staple of cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. 


I believe it is referred to as 'fundamentalist desperation'.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And further, why it was so important to further the doctrine of evolution, with our without scientific testability of all its components, in a way that discredits religion.  The idea that both evoutionary theory and religious faith could coexist peacefully side by side is not acceptable to those with Marxist goals.  The State--the vision of Utopian society itself--must be the god of all lest anybody be encouraged to think for themselves or take the initiative to test the concepts and/or theories preached as gospel.

So the evolutionary religionists go out of their way to denigrate, accuse, belittle, ridicule, and/or diminish all people of faith, call them all sorts of names, accuse them of all manner of sins, while protesting any question of any kind of the adopted evolutionary doctrine of the day.

And certainly they do not wish to see how much their point of view coincides with the Marxist vision.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



There are quite a number of fallacies and outright falsehoods in the above. "Evolutionary religionists" is a boilerplate term furthered by fundamentalists who are threatened by science and the consensus it brings. That is why the christain fundamentalists have become increasingly more desperate in their efforts to force  ID creationism into the public school system. And let's be honest. It's Christian creationists who want their religious beliefs forced upon school children. 

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them. Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gods did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

What many people (especially IDiots, creationists, or whatever invented term is used to describe their supernaturalism) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the young and growing scientific community (growing in sophistication and testing methods), did not embrace all of his theory. However, they were convinced by "Origin of Species" that the fact of evolution was true. It was only during the decades after his death that his basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics that convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are tested and open to peer review. Exceeding what Darwin could have hoped for, the testing that continues even now, and the continued scientific verification of theory, has only strengthened the support for biological evolution.

The bottom line is very simple. Evolution is completely silent regarding supernatural events. Your need to introduce your owns fears, paranoia and conspiracy theories aimed at "evilutionists" is really childish and naive. 

Show us a workable mechanism for peer reviewed testing of your gods, as opposed to the Hindu gods. Demonstrate for us the _real_ gods and how science can investigate the supernatural.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...





Excellent point...


1.	Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in Finding Darwin's God, that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG)  has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia). 

And yet, they become enraged at either the criticism of Darwin's theory, or the possibility that religion might offer an answer.


Further, the importance to define the relationship the Darwinists have with the Marxists:

2. "The Left says of the Right, You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE? 

 But this supposed intransigence on the part of the *Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Lefts love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy,* all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, *despotism and murder.*"
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 27, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Case in point:  What constitutes a different species?  Different DNA, definitely.  But within the human race there are several distinctly different phenotypes.  Skin color, predisposition to certain illnesses, body build, and the list could go on.  So, by his logic and based on those so called 'studies' blacks, whites, Asians, Indian would all be different species. 

What species is a virus?  I wonder if he can get his head around THAT one.  Is a virus even a living organism?  What even constitutes a living organism?  DNA?  A carbon based body?  Respiration?  Procreatiion? Food consumption? Having gender?  If science can't agree on exactly what a virus is, how can they claim to know the origins of man!  They really shouldn't.  Because they don't know.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The whole OP is one big error.

There's nothing to discuss.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





It is so utterly disappointing to find this low caliber of opposition.

All you've done is verify the OP.

Based on how vapid your post is.....why'd you even bother.
It's not as though this post made you seem any smarter than had you not posted.


If there is an idea in your head, it's in solitary confinement.


----------



## MaryL (Nov 27, 2013)

Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a  Christian man  and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 27, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a Christian man and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.


That's likely why this thread is not about Darwin, it's about what a small sector of his apparatchiks turned it into on their way to support their little outhouse of atheism. Do you see the difference?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a  Christian man  and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.




The problem is not with the premise, which is absolutely true.


Perhaps you should work harder at understanding the premise of the OP....it is well documented.


Love that avi.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...






Now, I realize that books, to you, are like a cross to a vampire.....

....but allow me to recommend a couple by Charles Fort....


"The Complete Books of Charles Fort: The Book of the Damned / Lo! / Wild Talents / New Lands" by Charles Fort


Fort would list all sorts of phenomenon, world wide, that were unexplainable by science, i.e., 'damned.'


Fish falling from the sky, different colors of rain,...

From an amazon review:
"Fort's point: What doesn't fit in is damned. What other strange phenomena have been excluded from respectable consideration? Fort tells of fish and stones falling from the clouds, strange craft cruising the skies in the 1890's, lights moving beneath the surface of the sea, vitrified (melted) stone forts in Scotland, disappearing stars, red rain, unknown planets crossing the sun, and sea serpents."


You might find soup falling from the sky in Fort's work.....



Kind of prepared me for dealing with folks like you.......


----------



## MaryL (Nov 27, 2013)

What is the difference between a Christian operackik and a Darwinist?  Facts.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 27, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a  Christian man  and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.



This is only the worst _so far_.

This is just the latest thread that PC has dumped into the forum to express her revulsion for science, (especially evolution), and knowledge in general. 

She is probably the most prolific cut and paster, scouring the bowels of Harun Yahya and the polluted backwater of Christian fundamentalist websites for quote-mines she can drench the thread with.

The falsifications of the science positions posted by PC is another of the devices used by creationists to create the illusion that creationism is a viable mechanism to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Christian creationism is simply the misrepresentation of authoritative scientific research; The lack of actual research undertaken by the christian creationist ministries and the refusal to submit research and results for peer review. The occasional bit of jingoistic flatulence allows creationist hacks to appear authoritative to people with a prior commitment to religious dogma. However, since there is nothing in the literature of the Christian creationist ministries to support their arguments, their charade of authority can be maintained only by pressing a distorted caricature of how the Scientific Method is actually maintained.

What is truly laughable in the allegations of the typical IDiot argument from incredulity (and an especially poor one given the substantial lack of rhetorical skill of fundie hacks is demonstrated by the fact that the creation ministries can offer no mechanism or theory as to what alternative mechanism (other than the implied gawds did it) could better explain the convergence of evolution. This is especially laughable because the DiscoTutes own Michael Behe proposed a laughably creationist inspired theory about decade ago. The first cell 3.5 - 4 billion years ago might have had all of the required genetic material for reproduction in place but was simply turned off until needed. Its a laughable joke but that is what defines the Christian creationist agenda.

Just think, for all these decades, the Christian creationist ministries could have been testing the data and publishing peer reviewed papers proving their Christian gawds. Instead, theyve been recycling the same tired nonsense that has been shown over and over again to do nothing but a misrepresentation of evolution.


----------



## Peterf (Nov 28, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



There is a simple definition of a species:  animals are of the same species if they are able to produce breeding offspring.  And if not, not.    Example: Horses and donkeys can produce offspring, mules.  But mules cannot breed, therefore horses and donkeys are different species.


----------



## Peterf (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Is this another of your wild suppositions?   That all Swedes are Marxists?

Of course there is common ground between atheism and evolutionary biology.   Both are rational and scoff at creationist religious claptrap.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 28, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...








Now....I was trying to be kind.....but you've forced me to provide* the real connection between atheism and those who don't subscribe to "religious claptrap:"*



1."For starters, unlike the godless state to which American leftists aspire, Lutheranism is the state-supported religion of Sweden. (Despite this fact, *less than 10 per cent of Swedes *regularly attend church).

2. According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of *Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent  roughly equal to the black community in the United States. *




3. Worst of all, the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997,Washington Post,

From 1934 to 1974, *62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology *and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, *couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children* when they became teenagers.


One woman, aged 72 at the time of the Post article, was *sterilized "because she couldn't read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses *and was deemed to be retarded."

....that "90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that *"the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, *started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of *social control.*" 





4. Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that *Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables,*" in some cases without the consent of their families....the benevolent *socialist government of Sweden *hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism alists.



Aren't you proud?

Or simply dumb as asphalt.




The same pattern and beliefs in Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, in Sweden, in Holland's rampant euthanasia...and in Obama's Death Panels....
...human beings are expendable.
The Left.....populated with psychopaths.

Over and over, history reveals the slaughter and oppression of regimes which mock "creationist religious claptrap."




Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in The Brothers Karamazov, exclaimed if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Sunshine,
> ...



Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution. 

Evolution is scientific fact.  Scientific fact is apolitical.  2  + 2 = 4.  That is not communism.  The earth revolves around the sun.  That is not communism.  Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism.  It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 28, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Sunshine,
> ...



The title of the study is (in my words) "The Molecular Evolution of Cricket Jizz."

Of course the study addresses natural selection  as the authors actually use the words "natural selection" See the below quote that you quoted yourself, then ignored.

To understand the evolution of male ejaculates, it [/B]is essential
to know how natural and sexual selection determine
characteristics of these complex mixtures and of their individual
components.[/quote]

They are studying evolution, therefore they are validating it.  You claimed there were no valid studies supporting evolution.  That was the point we were debating and you clearly lost this point.

You just can't admit that you were wrong.

Case closed!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 28, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...





Not only has it been demonstrated that Marxism relies on Darwin's precis....but it has also been clearly shown that the major proponents of Darwinism rely on Marxism for their belief in evolution.

"....Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his marxism, and lauds *the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."*

So...if Gould says such....to deny it would simply be a flight into stupidity.
Oh...right...you are stupid.
Deny away.



The only thing that has been debunked is a view that you can add two and two.


Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



In no stretch of a religious fundamentalist imagination have you made any case for Marxism relying on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Back to Harun Yahya for you.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?

Gould was not a Marxist.

Try again.

BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Oh really.

There really isn't anything to discuss.

Your OP is moronic.

It tosses away centuries of science and replaces it with centuries of mumbo jumbo.

Darwinism is bad because it's atheist and therefore must be communism..right?

That's an insane premise.

Seriously and ridiculously so.

You should feel embarrassed about it.

I'll leave you with this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It has not been demonstrated that evolution relies on Marxism.  That is a ridiculous premise.  Scientific fact is apolitical.

I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns.  He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns.

Here's what Gould said about his political philosophy (from a wikipedia entry)

Though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father", he stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[8]

Even if Gould was a Marxist, there are thousands of evolutionary biologists who are not Marxist, thus completely invalidating your absurd point.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 28, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...







"BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point."

I appreciate your honesty in not denying any of the above appellations. 


Now...merely to drive home a point which has been duly proven....

" The photographs that adorn a mans office speak volumes about him. In the office of the late Stephen J. Gould, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, peering down upon that prolific desk, is the photograph of Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), the revolutionary who founded the Communist dictatorship in Russia  a materialistic, godless system."

According to a recent article by Lowell Ponte, a former roving editor for Readers Digest, the theory of evolution became [Goulds] substitute for religion. Robert Wright, in his book, The Moral Animal, describes this as the sort of faith that no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question. That is a strange philosophy for one who called himself a scientist  a term which presupposes someone in a quest for knowledge, whatever its source.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/525-stephen-j-gould-1941-2002



Please deny the fact once again so that I can once again pin the tail on you, you donkey.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



Yep.

Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. Among the many false claims made by ID'iot creationists, there is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism: CA111: Scientists reject evolution?



> Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory.



Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.

For most people who have studied the life sciences, the attitudes and ignorance expressed by people such as PC are chilling. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. Science has had the affect of pruning back the overreaching of religion into science. That's been a positive development for humanity.

for PC's benefit: The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when crackpots scour websites such as Harun Yahya for their science and religion, it tends toward the debilitating disease of _PC Syndrome_.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Umm. Sorry. I've tried to find a source other than your silly "christiancourier" website to verify this claim. 

Sorry, it's just as phony as so much of your cut and paste nonsense.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 28, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



One does not need to read much of Gould to see the Marxian influences in his point of view.  That did not stop him from being an esteemed colleague of the peers nor one of America's favorite and most quoted scientists.  Marxism is far more than a mere political philosophy but is rather intended as a way of life--a state of being of society as a whole.

Originally published in the National Review:


> *Raised by his father as a Marxist,* (Stephen Jay) Gould hated the possibility that evolution had shaped human nature beyond the powers of social engineers to alter. He especially loathed the concept that humans varied genetically. Yet, he was never able to construct a theory of his own that made more accurate predictions about contemporary humanity.
> Stephen Jay Gould, R.I.P. by Steve Sailer for National Review; obituary, Marxist, IQ, punctuated equilibria, Simpsons, Ken Burns, cancer, sociobiology, Edward. O. Wilson, evolutionary psychology,


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Why not identify for us the alleged Marxist "point of view" that has any bearing on his works in evolutionary biology.

You may wish to peruse the entirety of the following link, first.

Evolution and Metaphysics

_[Note in passing, that Gould is not a Marxist, although there are a number of prominent evolutionary biologists who make no secret of being so. Also note that there are many liberal and conservative evolutionary biologists. Political affiliation does not specify what sorts of theoretical views one must have. Darwin was a Whig (middle-class liberal) while Huxley and Wallace were radicals. Spencer and Haeckel could only be called conservatives, and a number of Haeckel's views were influential in the rise of fascism. Yet these political views did not determine agreement on matters of theoretical biology. See below, "Evolution outside biology".] _


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 28, 2013)

MaryL said:


> What is the difference between a Christian operackik and a Darwinist?  Facts.




ap·pa·rat·chik
&#716;äp&#601;&#712;räCHik/Submit

1.
an official in a large organization, typically a political one.


The important difference is that, unlike atheist scientists, the other side doesn't attack an alternative view.


1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the &#8220;Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival&#8221; conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed &#8220;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.&#8221; He was warmly applauded.

2. Why did Christopher Hitchens write&#8230;&#8221; God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!&#8221; Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other &#8216;gifts&#8217; of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3.  Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: &#8220;The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition &#8212; one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.&#8221;    Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive 
While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

4. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise.  Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church&#8217;s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.  *Gary North*


I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won&#8217;t have any public schools.  The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.  What a happy day that will be.   *Jerry Falwell*


There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.  *Pat Robertson*


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



You didn't even read the quoted paragraph, did you.  It is pretty discouraging to try to have a discussion with somebody who demands evidence of the other, but is incapable of seeing that the evidence has already been provided even when they quote it in their response.  Sigh.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise.  Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Churchs public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.  *Gary North*
> 
> 
> I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we wont have any public schools.  The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.  What a happy day that will be.   *Jerry Falwell*
> ...



  Ain't that the truth?!


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually, I did read it - the entire article, in context.. I also note that you're unable to offer a coherent comment on the subject.

It seems you don't do real well with context.

Sigh.

Late edit, Foxfyre. Here, let me lend an assist. From the article I linked, the more excitable of the creationist crowd rattle on about attacking science as a means and methods to deflect criticism of the dead end which is Christian creationism.



The Context 

"When we discuss creation/evolution, we are talking about beliefs: i.e. religion. The controversy is not religion versus science, it is religion versus religion, and the science of one religion versus the science of another." (Ham 1983, cited in Selkirk and Burrows 1987:3) 


"It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audience that evolution is not scientific, because both sides agree that creationism is not." (Miller 1982: 4, also cited in Selkirk and Burrows 1987: 103)


----------



## Hollie (Nov 28, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise.  Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Churchs public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.  *Gary North*
> ...



Oh yeah. The Christian Taliban would be a real hoot.


"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

-Jerry Falwell



"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
-Jerry Falwell




"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court." 
Pat Robertson



"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." 
Pat Robertson


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



A creationist's slanderous obituary is not a fact.

You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact, perhaps explaining your own ignorance.

I seriously doubt Gould had a photo of Lenin in his office.

Lowell Ponte's opinion is also not a fact.


----------



## Peterf (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



1. You are misinformed.   All connections between the state and the Lutheran church were severed many years ago.   Happily the second part of your statement is correct.   Superstition is almost defeated in Sweden and few attend churches.    (The number attending mosques is growing but that is another story).

2.  Correct.   Fewer Swedes than ever, including member of my extended family, feel the next to get married.   There are however some indications that this trend is about to reverse.

3.   Enforced sterilisation was long since exposed in the Swedish media and has been agonised over as a national shame ever since.

I am proud to be Swedish - in a very modest sort of way.  It is a second nationality which I actually chose to adopt.

And no, I am not dumb, being lucky enough to have an extremely high IQ.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Gould said he didn't agree with his father's politics, as I quoted in one of my above posts.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > What is the difference between a Christian operackik and a Darwinist?  Facts.
> ...



Here's an analogy that should demonstrate how stupid the entire premise of your thread is.

A few white men lynched a black man.

Therefore, all white men are members of the KKK.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...







So.....what are you saying? The lobotomy didn't take?


I note that that IQ prevented you from denying the connection between Leftism and sterilization, lobotomies, death panels, gulags, terror famines, oppression, genocide, eugenics, ....just some of the simpler methods of communism, socialism, progressivism, Liberalism.....every stripe of Leftism.


Good stuff, huh?


Heck.....sure would have been terrible if you folks and the others mentioned had stuck to that 'ol' time superstition'......and missed out on all of the above.



Moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...





So....you're no longer denying that many of the 'evolutionary biologists' were Marxists?

At least 'a few'?

See we're making progress! 
And folks thought you were incapable of being taught!





Now....let me be nice.

Although I've admitted my manifest dislike for you, nevertheless, I'm going to ask an indulgence.
Your denial of Gould's Marxism suggests an OP that I would like to construct....and I'd like to quote you in same.
If you'd rather I not mention your name, please advise and I will honor your request.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...



They are studying evolution, therefore they are validating it.  You claimed there were no valid studies supporting evolution.  That was the point we were debating and you clearly lost this point.

You just can't admit that you were wrong.

Case closed![/QUOTE]

I can't resist rubbing it in.

Sunshine didn't respond to this one.

I guess she realized she had a real "duh" moment.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...





Actually....that's not exactly what he said.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...





"You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact,...."

OK!

You take first place in the category of 'Unintentional Humor"!!!


That statement of yours is exactly the point I've made about 'Darwinian evolution'!!!!

It's 'someone's opinion and not a fact,...'



Dunce.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Wrong.  I AM denying "that many evolutionary biologists were marxists."

You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist.

I am simply showing how stupid the premise of your thread is.  Even if there was 1 evolutionary biologist who was a Marxist, that doesn't mean the whole science is connected to a political theory.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2013)

At the university I attend, there is this silly fellow with a red beard and big gut that about three times a week goes to the commons, blows this horn, and proceeds to lecture everybody on how the earth is 6000 years old, and the Bible has all the truth in it that one needs. One of the young students finally challenged him, stating "How can you come here, to an institution devoted to learning and knowledge, and willfully spew ignorance". I think that fellow must be closely related to PC.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 29, 2013)

Politicalchick,

For your mental health, I suggest stepping away from the computer for a while.

My analogy has destroyed the premise of your thread.  There is no need for this thread to continue.

It's time for you to stop and think a minute, so you can realize this.

You expressed your dislike for me, yet we have never met.  You simply dislike me because I won't go along with your stupid fantasy that somehow the Theory of Evolution is all a communist plot.  That is not a reason to dislike someone.  This is yet another reason for you to step away from the computer and get out in the real world to socialize with human beings.  You will find that you disagree with a lot of people, but that is no reason to dislike them.  I bet you wouldn't be likely to call any of them a "bird brain" to their face either.

I know you think you are more clever than me and are somehow scheming to start a new thread to redeem yourself.

I suggest you stop before you require medication because you will only reinforce the opinion of many of us that you are a foolish man with foolish ideas.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Evolution is among the best demonstrated and most widely supported of all scientific theories. 

You will be having difficulty understanding what "fact" and "theory" means in the realm of science so raise your hand and ask questions for help. 

The fact of biological adaptation and fitness for survival are not mere opinions. 

You really send too much time slack-jawed and dumb-founded staring at Harun Yahya's website.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Politicalchick,
> 
> For your mental health, I suggest stepping away from the computer for a while.
> 
> ...






Let's be clear. 

The very first I became aware of you was a neg....from a new poster.

No debate....no interaction of any kind.

Therefore, I have, and will, treat you in the way one as mannerless as you deserve.


As you have avoided responding to my question, I'll assume you don't want me to use your name in the OP I plan. Therefore I will use your quote, sans the attribution.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Politicalchick,
> 
> For your mental health, I suggest stepping away from the computer for a while.
> 
> ...






Check this out.....I made you famous:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html


----------



## Hollie (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > Politicalchick,
> ...



Yet another thread of phony "quotes".


----------



## Peterf (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



What a shame that you believe, in your confused way, that to combat leftism one must deny evolution.     Rather pathetic and saddening.  I feel sorry for you PC

The odd thing is that it is the same type of immature personality that embraces either communism or religion.   One which longs for an infallible authority.   One which finds an obligation to think for oneself frightening and much prefers submission to dogma.


----------



## Peterf (Nov 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise.  Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Churchs public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.  *Gary North*
> 
> 
> I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we wont have any public schools.  The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.  What a happy day that will be.   *Jerry Falwell*
> ...



All three Americans I think.   Nowhere else would Christians risk derision and contempt by expressing such intentions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...





Changing the subject?


What....ignoring this brilliant paragraph:

*"I note that that IQ prevented you from denying the connection between Leftism and sterilization, lobotomies, death panels, gulags, terror famines, oppression, genocide, eugenics, ....just some of the simpler methods of communism, socialism, progressivism, Liberalism.....every stripe of Leftism."*



Seems I was wrong: your lobotomy did have an effect.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Harun Yahya wasn't bad enough. Now you're getting your cut and paste material from Wiki.

Oy. The mind of a religious whack job - a dark and dangerous place.


----------



## Peterf (Nov 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



As you well know I share your dislike and distrust for "every stripe of leftism".   Religious mania - is treatment available for you? - only gets in the way when one seeks to explain the dreadful harm done by the left.      It would be a great pity if people came to believe that conservatives need to be as mad as you are.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 30, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...







Perhaps you can clear up any misapprehensions I might have, and explore what you have identified as my 'madness.'





Which is preferable....some belief in 'religious claptrap' or the *62,000 forced sterilizations *of Swedes?

Take your time.....


Which is preferable....some belief in 'religious claptrap' or *4500 Swedes lobotomized?*

In my 'madness' I come to a pretty quick conclusion....but a smart guy like you might want to mull that over.






And....Which is preferable....some belief in 'religious claptrap' or the *7 million starved to death under Stalin?*

or...how about this: religious claptrap or *50 million slaughtered under the communist Mao?*






Still thinking?

C'mon now...you said you had a high IQ, didn't you?


One more?

Which is preferable....some belief in 'religious claptrap' or the *forced sterilizations of Americans,...60,000 by the socialists via eugenics....A hallmark of the Progressive Era? *


Imagine how many human beings could have been saved if more folks had the 'madness' that you claim that I evince.





Even without you answering, I have drawn a conclusion:
Your head is proof of the Casimir effect, in that the force of your opinions seems to arise from the pure vacuum between your ears.
 The Casmir effect only becomes significant at the submicrometer scale. Thus, in addition to being vacuous, you're also a pin-head.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hey, PC. Try doing a head count and let us know how many you can sign-up for another Inquisition..... more Crusades.


Not too many evil scientists being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse. Oh, how we miss the good old says of Christendom.


----------



## Peterf (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




I, too, can play this game.   And play it better than you.

During the 30 Years War - 1618-48 - vast numbers of Europeans were killed by your fellow religious maniacs.

Which is better?  60,000 sterilisations by Swedes OR the destruction by Swedes in the German states of 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns (1/3 of all the towns in what is now Germany).  

  Protestants other than Swedes also killed millions as, of course, did the Catholics on the other side.   These people died in the name of religion.   Unlike, for example, those murdered by Mao who killed for purely political reasons.

The 30 Years War saw uncountable atrocities, every one motivated by religious belief.  The name of 'Christianity' was blackened for evermore.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 1, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...







*Actually, you can't compete....*

...the facts are on my side.

*.... every genocide of the 20th century....the century of genocide....was carried out by Big Government.*


Non-religion is responsible for far, far more horripilation than religion.



First World War (1914&#8211;18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (1917&#8211;22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalin&#8217;s regime (1924&#8211;53): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (1937&#8211;45): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (1945&#8211;49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
People&#8217;s Republic of China, Mao Zedong&#8217;s 
regime (1949&#8211;75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 million
Tibet (1950 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000
Congo Free State (1886&#8211;1908): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 million
Mexico (1910&#8211;20): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians (1915&#8211;23): . . . . . 1.5 million
China (1917&#8211;28): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
China, Nationalist era (1928&#8211;37): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
Korean War (1950&#8211;53): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (1959&#8211;95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
Second Indochina War (1960&#8211;75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 million
Ethiopia (1962&#8211;92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Nigeria (1966&#8211;70): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Bangladesh (1971): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975&#8211;78): . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 million
Mozambique (1975&#8211;92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Afghanistan (1979&#8211;2001): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 million
Iran&#8211;Iraq War (1980&#8211;88): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
Kinshasa, Congo (1998 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 million
Philippines Insurgency (1899&#8211;1902): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Amazonia (1900&#8211;1912): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Portuguese colonies (1900&#8211;1925): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325,000
French colonies (1900&#8211;1940): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Japanese War (1904&#8211;5): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
German East Africa (1905&#8211;7): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Libya (1911&#8211;31): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000
Balkan Wars (1912&#8211;13): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000
Greco&#8211;Turkish War (1919&#8211;22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Spanish Civil War (1936&#8211;39): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365,000
Franco Regime (1939&#8211;75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935&#8211;41): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Finnish War (1939&#8211;40): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Greek Civil War (1943&#8211;49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,000
Yugoslavia, Tito&#8217;s regime (1944&#8211;80): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
First Indochina War (1945&#8211;54): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Colombia (1946&#8211;58): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
India (1947): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Romania (1948&#8211;89): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Burma/Myanmar (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
Algeria (1954&#8211;62): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,000
Sudan (1955&#8211;72): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Guatemala (1960&#8211;96): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Indonesia (1965&#8211;66): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Uganda, Idi Amin&#8217;s regime (1972&#8211;79): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Vietnam, postwar Communist regime 
(1975 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430,000
Angola (1975&#8211;2002): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
East Timor, conquest by Indonesia (1975&#8211;99): . . . . . 200,000
Lebanon (1975&#8211;90): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Cambodian Civil War (1978&#8211;91): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979&#8211;2003): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Uganda (1979&#8211;86): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Liberia (1989&#8211;97): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Iraq (1990&#8211; ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992&#8211;95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000


Pretty good work by your 'non-religious maniacs,' eh?



In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled &#8220;Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival&#8221; in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.

 The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the
theory of electroweak uni&#64257;cation, the work for which he was
awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a &#64257;gure of great stature. &#8220;Religion,&#8221; he affirmed, &#8220;is an insult to human dignity. With or
without it you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things,
that takes religion&#8221; .

In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not
one member of his audience asking the question one might
have thought pertinent:
 Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scienti&#64257;c justi&#64257;cations for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?

The above exposition from Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."



He exposes fools like you who have accepted what is clearly false re: religion vs non-religion.





*"I, too, can play this game.   And play it better than you."

As you can see, you come off as quite the buffoon.*


----------



## Sallow (Dec 1, 2013)

Wow.

You left out American wars.

Go fig.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 1, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Wow.
> 
> You left out American wars.
> 
> Go fig.






Oh, my....I mention 'buffoon' and look who pops up.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It's so cute how religious zealots seem to find other religious zealots to "quote"

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for berlinski




Berlinski  still pompous, still wrong.

Berlinski ? still pompous, still wrong. ? Good Math, Bad Math


----------



## Sallow (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.
> ...



The irony meter just broke.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 1, 2013)

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





There is a technique ubiquitous among those of your persuasion....vapid and inarticulate semi-posts.


And it is often not based on an inability to express one's point fully and cogently.


Rather it is based on the hope that you haven't provided material that can be shredded and shown to be deficient.


It is, in reality, a fear of debate.


The fear is well founded.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.
> 
> The physicist Steven
> Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the
> ...



Given the crimes committed in the name of God over the centuries, do you really think the numbers of corpses produced by the faithful would really be smaller had they access to modern technology? The same mindset that produced "Kill them all; God will know his own" would somehow not exist if the Crusaders had access to Zyklon B instead of just swords? The Conquistadors would somehow be less brutal if they had machine guns instead of matchlocks? That the 30 Years War would have been less bloody if both sides had the ability to carpet bomb cities? That Mohammed's conquest of the Middle East would have had fewer civilian casualties if he just had tanks?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.
> ...







'If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.'



Reality vs. imagination......that's what you're reduced to?


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




There is no debating your fraudulent, cut and paste "quotes".

You're not at all equipped to respond to any comments except to cut and paste boilerplate crestionist fraud.


----------



## SGT_Kat (Dec 2, 2013)

I have no problem with, in a way, joining Christianity with science. I view science as a way of explaining how God created everything. They do not have to be at odds with one another. In fact they complement each other. However, I will point out that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There are aspects of the theory that can be scientifically proven and there are aspects that are questionable. A good scientist will still question the entire theory until it can be completely proven (100%) and therefore changed into a scientific law. I maintain an open mind to new ideas.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 2, 2013)

SGT_Kat said:


> I have no problem with, in a way, joining Christianity with science. I view science as a way of explaining how God created everything. They do not have to be at odds with one another. In fact they complement each other.



I have no problem with that. In fact, in many freshmen science texts the author will point out that both science search for answers, although what the question is (why vs. how), what the answer is, and what the methodologies are different. 



> However, I will point out that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.



No. A scientific theory has a specific definition. From the National Academy of Sciences: 





> *Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*​*
> *Fact:* In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
> 
> *Hypothesis:* A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
> ...


 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

When you say the theory of evolution is just a theory, you are using the wrong definition of the word theory. 





> There are aspects of the theory that can be scientifically proven and there are aspects that are questionable. A good scientist will still question the entire theory until it can be completely proven (100%) and therefore changed into a scientific law. I maintain an open mind to new ideas.



An open mind if great, but science doesn't prove, it explains. It points to how things work which explains the evidence. Nothing is ever really proven and can always be modified, revised, or outright discarded should new evidence be found.

That said, we're at the point that certain things in science just aren't going to be discarded because we know they are right. We know cell theory is right. We know the heliocentric model is right. We know atomic theory is right. We're not going to accept alternate views of those issues in science because we know the explanations we've developed are solid and aren't going to be over turned. Evolution is in the same boat. The science is there, biologists accept evolution because it explains the evidence at hand and has stood up to a century and a half of testing and observations.


----------



## SGT_Kat (Dec 2, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> SGT_Kat said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with, in a way, joining Christianity with science. I view science as a way of explaining how God created everything. They do not have to be at odds with one another. In fact they complement each other.
> ...



I stand corrected on the use of the word theory. With that said, if a new concept or an improved concept on the current theory of evolution comes along it should not be dismissed simple because the current theory is so well established.  Science builds on itself and once completely accepted ideas are improved. Einstein did not disprove Newton, but he questioned some things and eventually improved on some concepts.  
http:// csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 2, 2013)

That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs. 

What is the issue is people who don't like what science is finding because it makes them uncomfortable (generally because it comes up against their religious views) and who want to simply throw away the science. That's what we've got here with the anti-evolution movement.


----------



## SGT_Kat (Dec 2, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs.
> 
> What is the issue is people who don't like what science is finding because it makes them uncomfortable (generally because it comes up against their religious views) and who want to simply throw away the science. That's what we've got here with the anti-evolution movement.



Thats just frustrating to me. Why is it so hard for some to stop separating the two? Science doesnt disprove God and God doesnt disprove science.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

SGT_Kat said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > That's not the issue. There are many questions still to be answered in evolution and there will be some hypotheses that will pan out and some won't and some will be replaced by something better down the line. It's the same way Newton took the work by Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler and made advances in our understanding of what gravity is and how it works but didn't go far enough. Then came Einstein and Higgs.
> ...





Actually, sarge, famed neo-Darwinist Stephen Gould said pretty much the same thing:
"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap."
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## abu afak (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why
> *Darwin's theory of evolution, Unsupported by Evidence, is so immensely popular in academia* and accepted by the mass of less than inform....


Dear Religious Zealots/CRACKPOTS/Asylum Escapees/Stupendously Ignorant,

There is Profuse Evidence for Evolution. 
Millions of Fossils... all in the Right Geologic Strata around the globe. 
As would Also be predicted by evolution, there are intermediate fossils to all extant and extinct species (including Us) and more being found daily.
Isotopic dating, like Carbon Dating (1949), Confirm age etc.
DNA Regression analysis also shows the progression of Life.
EVERY New area of science (of which any could debunk it) only Confirm it yet further... of course.

There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.


----------



## Peterf (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> SGT_Kat said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...




Once upon a time, say four hundred years ago,  we didn't know very much and god or gods was a useful explanation for everything from rainfall to disease.

Science was born, grew and thrived.   The space for blind superstition to flourish became ever more cramped.   So science has not so much 'disproved' religion as removed the requirement for it to exist.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Yesterday, in "Comrade Darwin," http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html, the reason why
> ...








If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid. 


"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment"- Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).




And this subject is of personal importance to you 'cause you're the first in your family born without a tail?


----------



## abu afak (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


And you think that Snippet Refutes ALL my points!
The problem is you are Way Too Ignorant/Jesus-Freaked-out To debate and Dishonest besides.

You cannot address my points in your own words.
As always, YOU ARE NONCONVERSANT On this topic and you know it.. so you use/wear out these moronic Out-of-context snippets. Most classically with ie, Gould.

I repete, UNREFUTED even UNADDRESSED:
*There is Far more Evidence of Evolution, in fact, than there is of Jesus Christ, who has little more than legend.*

No outa context comparative snippet for that one?
`


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...






Know what.....you need to use larger font....that will prove your nonsense.


And...the clever technique of bringing up Jesus Christ......not part of the thread in any way or form.
Your A.D.D. is showing.

You're just too stupid to realize that I have posted that supporters of Darwin are largely atheist communists.
Thanks for furthering my thesis.



And, this education for you:

1. About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is *no evidence of intermediate forms*. 
The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because *every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.* (Bergman, Jerry, The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish, CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. )


2.  *Absence of the transitional fossils* in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution. This is one count in the creationists charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere 
(Strahler, Arthur, Science and Earth History, 1987, p. 408.).


3. Given the fact of evolution, *one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change *from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds *gaps in just about every phyletic series.* (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)



Looks like you have the IQ of lint, doesn't it?


In evolutionary terms, you are proto-coprolite.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



 Um, sorry dear, but I've made the point to you repeatedly that (for a fee), I will make myself available to screen the "quotes' you cut and paste from Harun Yahya. 

Once again, you're just too stupid to understand that your rabid cutting and pasting of phony "quotes", and repeatedly being exposed as a fraud for doing so would leave any rational, thinking human to reconsider such behavior.

It was bad enough when you cut and pasted "quotes" from a Canadian science fiction writer and tried to pass that off as authoritative on the subject of biology. But now, in your orgasmic embrace of _The Stupid_, you are once again "quote-mining" among the most discredited and just plain stupid of the bible thumpers.   


You

Feaking

Moron



Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes




> In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment -Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).





Quote #3.5

[There are no fossils showing transitions between species Representative quote miners: Evolution Cruncher: No Transitions --Only Gaps and Reason & Revelation: 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific Americans Nonsense

For the complete article, see talk.origins post 3B44F6F3.E190A40D@crosswinds.net.

The only "surprise" here is that creationists have so little shame.

Once again, this is an article about the (then relatively new) proposal by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge of Punctuated Equilibria. It was apparently so new to these magazine writers that they (perhaps abetted by some of Gould's and Eldredge's scientific opponents) confused it with Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" ideas, even though they note:



> The paleontologists who have been in the forefront of the new theory don't necessarily believe in hopeful monsters. When they say that new species evolved rapidly, they are speaking in geologic terms. A single generation or 50,000 years is all the same to them. Either would be too short an interval for the intermediate organisms to appear in the fossil record.



In short, the article is nothing more than a report on the early arguments about Punctuated Equilibria. And the quote mine is just a snippet of the magazine writers' (not very clear) description of Gould and Eldredge's position, not a quote from any scientist.

In any case, the quote miners strangely fail to include the following:



> While the scientists have been refining the theory of evolution in the past decade, some nonscientists have been spreading anew the gospel of creationism -- and the coincidence has confused many laymen . . . Having opposed Darwin for 120 years, fundamentalists tend to seize on any criticism of his theories as vindication . . . But the new theories are intended to explain how evolution came about -- not to supplant it as a principle. Says Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, . . . "Evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees."



The irony of the miner's use of this article in the face of the above is obvious and demonstrates more about the miners' honesty than it does anything about evolution.


----------



## TheShinyOne (Dec 2, 2013)

The fossil record... Scientists have a peculiar understanding of just what exactly is a 'record', that they mock religion as if Christians are yet to evolve from vinyl to CD.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 2, 2013)

When you attack the theory of evolution, you put yourself firmly in the loony camp.


----------



## rdean (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You recognizing stupid is a simpleton "guessing".


----------



## Hollie (Dec 3, 2013)

If anyone is curious as to where (besides Harun Yahya), PC is stealing her cut and paste "quotes":


Large Gaps in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park

Yeah, drooling, Dark Ages wannabes at "genesispark". 



And here is their "missionary" statement



> About Genesis Park
> 
> The purpose of Genesis Park is to showcase the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history.




Oh yeah, man and dinosaurs frollicking together in a world created 6,000 years ago. 

What a joke.

I'm afraid that for fundamentalist, Flat Earth cranks, such as PC, not facts, not evidence, not reality itself can penetrate the twisted, fundamentalist mindset.


----------

