# Darwin: Far From Science



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

a. "Just because any religious idea, *any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness*, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the _democratic _bourgeoisie—*for that very reason it is the most dangerous* foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million _physical _sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the _nubile_, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." 
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

*This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.*




2. Believers point to *the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, *most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, *a Creator* of said life.


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

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that *evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.* 

Certain of our *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. *What remains is evolutionary fantasy,* of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. *If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.*

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote *to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,*and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


_"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"_


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....


----------



## Fenton Lum (Oct 9, 2017)

Science = communism.  You heard it here.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Science = communism.  You heard it here.




I find that there is a pattern in the responses to these OPs by the Leftists and simpletons....although that may be redundant.

a.  Something or things in the OP cause them to be irate.
b. Like the proverbial eunuch in the harem, while they rush in to dispute the OP...'they'd like to, but they just can't.'
c. They can do nothing but either attempt some vapid insult that falls short of clever....
..or...
...as this moron did....
...claim I said something I clearly did not.


To spoon-feed this moron.....Darwin's theory has become not science, but a tool of the Left.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"



Here's the difference between Science and Religion. 

Science continues to be true whether you believe in it or not. 

Religion, not so much.  

See this guy? His name was Zeus. And millions of people really thought he was sitting on top of Mount Olympus 







Then people stopped believing in him. Did he cease to exist when people stopped believing in him, or did he never exist in the first place? 

Now evolution, that happened. The fossils would be there whether we dug them up or not.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...





Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?


Excellent.


Can you get this notarized?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...





"Science continues to be true whether you believe in it or not."

Here's yet another fool confusing science with dogma.

Exactly the sort of fodder the Leftist love having around.


----------



## DGS49 (Oct 9, 2017)

A "Theory" is an explanation of reality, in the absence of definitive proof.

For example, since it is not possible to "see" the innards of an atom - to see how it actually exists and functions - scientists have been theorizing on the subject for centuries.  As new information and observations come to light, the theory is adjusted to meet the new knowledge, and now we have reached the point where "we" believe we fully understand the Atom.

No one has ever witnessed Evolution.  But the Theory explains almost everything observable about the natural world. There are some holes in it - some even pointed out by Darwin - but still, it does explain plants and animals in way that is almost understandable.

The trouble with such states of affairs is that, for people who have not studied it closely, Evolution takes on many aspects of a RELIGION.

With a RELIGION, the "believer" has a theory about the nature of the universe, and when the Believer finds something that seems to contradict the religious theory, he will either (a) investigate and modify the theory to allow for the new information, (b) condemn the proponent of the new information as a "heretic" and ignore or deny the information, or (c) abandon the theory.  As a gross example, when people first understood the archaeological evidence for the great age of the earth - which directly contradicts the Biblical story - they either modified the theory (said that Genesis was allegorical and not historical/scientific), or condemned the proponents as godless heretics.

With Evolution, when you point out something that contradicts the Theory, the non-scientists in the crowd will simply call you some version of a heretic, because they cannot refute the evidence. This is not productive, but I suppose it's the best they can do.  Ann Coulter has written many articles and an entire book chapter (I don't recall which one) on refutations of Evolution; but of course she is the biggest heretic of all.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> A "Theory" is an explanation of reality, in the absence of definitive proof.
> 
> For example, since it is not possible to "see" the innards of an atom - to see how it actually exists and functions - scientists have been theorizing on the subject for centuries.  As new information and observations come to light, the theory is adjusted to meet the new knowledge, and now we have reached the point where "we" believe we fully understand the Atom.
> 
> ...





"With Evolution, when you point out something that contradicts the Theory, ..."

Absolutely!

Gonna do exactly that.....

Coming right up.....stay tuned.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
> Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:
> 
> ...


Yes, scientists -- as in, virtually all of them -- consider evolution to be a fact. No, you are not presenting any challenge to this fact or to the theory of evolution to copy/paste creationist pap on a message board.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Oct 9, 2017)

The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.


Natural selection is only one of many mechanisms of evolution.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...





And yet another dunce checks in.

The OP stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.
> ...



I did not state otherwise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


No, idiot, I am not going to litigate the truth of evolutionary theory with you, nor will I dignify or legitimize your stupid, evil dogma with a direct response. You nuts have already been regulated to the status of deviants, pounding on the dome from the outside. Pound away, loser.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.





1. "... until evidence disputing it arises..."
Get ready.

2. The Left fears any debate on the matter.
While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. _Dallas Morning News,_ January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
 Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. '*Eugenie C. Scott is *a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.” 
Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

*Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up.'*
EBSCOhost


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Translation...." I can't."

Therefore, you acquiesce to the truth of every single item in the OP>

The OP stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.



Verified correct by the ineptitude of that dunce.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

Oh joy, another fun thread!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.
> ...


Who gives a shit what the "left" or "right" or your mother think about evolution? It's a scientific theory.  And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science. No, a scientist isn't going to waste his time debating know-nothing hacks about evolution, anymore than he would waste his time arguing with a flat earther.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Oh joy, another fun thread!




It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar. 

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh joy, another fun thread!
> ...


"Bring something to the table"

Something, like, no education or experience in this field whatsoever, laughably false disinformation, and copy/pasted, creationist pap?

None of that is "something". All of it is "nothing".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Anger? Wha? I have no need to get upset or defensive. Check the scoreboard....science 1000000, you nutballs 0.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




Did you want to compare your educational resume with mine?

That would prove to be another mistake for you.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.



Yawn   ..... We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world."

Cato's Mission

Looks like you're lumping again.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...






Gee.....seems I really got under your skin, huh?

Must be the facts that I posted and you've inadvertently agree to.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
> ...




"1. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,*whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness."


True?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What kind of idiot thinks his resume has any bearing on the truth of evolution? Also, it doesn't matter what is on your resume...a lie is a lie.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Ah yes, the ages old "accuse others of that which only I am guilty". No...the only person throwing a little hissy is you. Science left your magical nonsense behind long ago, and here you are , throwing a little fit over it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

4. Many of the stone-headed have been* tricked into accepting Darwinism, *and eschewing religion, which means eschewing morality and having to answer for one's deeds to some higher authority than the state.




What is glossed over is *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* in order for a theory to be accepted.




There are two forms of such proof Darwin requires: paleological and laboratory experiments.

5. *Darwin himself accepted this view, and was chagrinned that no such evidence existed.*

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained. "*                                                          Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

Uh, oh.




6. The fact that *many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day,* over 150 years after Darwin admitted that this fact " may be truly urged *as a valid argument against the views here entertained."*

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.




Darwin's theory requires a gradual series of alteration toward more complexity.

The fossil record proves this false.....yet many accept Darwinism as fact.

Go figure.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh joy, another fun thread!
> ...


When an OP begins with "Some dunce" and continues with BS, it is extremely hard to take you seriously. 

Then you supply supposed quotes from people who believe in evolution as reason not to believe in evolution?

Then you supply supposed quotes from commies and authoritarian socialists who believe in evolution as a reason not to believe in evolution?

I'm desperately waiting for a punchline. I hope it's worth the wait.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Didn't you attempt to refer to me in this way "...Something, like, no education..."

And now you're running from it like your tail was on fire.

Nice retreat.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




I never post with other than seraphic calm....and that's because I'm never wrong.

...as you have found.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



"Science left your magical nonsense behind..."

Did you see this?
What is glossed over is *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* in order for a theory to be accepted.


You don't understand the Scientific Method, do you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...





Stop begging.

OK>...here's another chance

This is what I've shown so far.....see if you can find any errors herein:



The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Have you ever noticed that crazy people always think it's everyone else who is crazy?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Your very first mistake is to claim that we evolutionary biologists are Darwinists.

When some clown argues with Darwin, we laugh. We corrected Darwin's errors a very long time ago.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No.  If you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Liberals have no problem with that, as long as you don't force your sauce, meatballs, and noodles on me.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Did you find anything 'crazy' in here.....or are you simply too far gone to recognize that you've been thoroughly indoctrinated?

The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


They gave up on educated adults long ago. Now they have to target children:
Republicans considering law to allow Creationism to be taught as a scientific theory

A Map of Thousands of Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism With Taxpayer Money


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...





What???

You're stating what the OP claims...that Darwin's theory is false????

Now....what is your pal gonna say....he claimed it was a 'fact'???


Get your stories straight!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Hah, you are so damn dumb. Nobody in their right mind would take that away from what either of us said.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





I can always prove that Liberalism is a spin-off of Bolshevism.....but for today, the importance of Darwin to you Leftists.

Perhaps you wanna try....

The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.




* Now....was there any of the above that you are prepared to deny?*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Did you find anything 'crazy' in here.....or are you simply too far gone to recognize that you've been thoroughly indoctrinated?

The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. *....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?




By ignoring the simple challenge which is the essence of your attempted denial, you have proven everything I wrote.

Excellent.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yes! I know, you are shocked. 



> Now....what is your pal gonna say....he claimed it was a 'fact'???
> 
> 
> Get your stories straight!



Yeah, it happens.

We can close this thread now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

More on brainwashing children:

Creationist brainwashing - Bad Astronomy

Long ago these fools realized that they are laughed right out of any serious company. So they build fancy museums with attractions for children and target children in their science classrooms.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




"We can close this thread now."

Gee.....the same thing every Liberal tries to do when an opposing voice speaks up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


I am unmoved. Fools like you declare victory always. Funny how you think you win every battle, despite losing the war 100 years ago.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> More on brainwashing children:
> 
> Creationist brainwashing - Bad Astronomy
> 
> Long ago these fools realized that they are laughed right out of any serious company. So they build fancy museums with attractions for children and target children in their science classrooms.





The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*

*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

Evil fundamentalist Ken Ham blames everyone but himself for failure:

Creationist Ken Ham Blames Atheists For Ark Park Failure

Crazy person attempts crazy stupid idea....fails spectacularly...blames atheists. No Ken, trust me, plenty of Christians are laughing at you, too.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Without Point number 1. ".....*Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness."  the rest falls apart.

Liberals espouse freedom of religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

Ken Ham, tax money thief:

Town expected flood of business after Noah’s Ark opened. So far, it’s a trickle.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





You Liberals sure are afraid of the truth.


"Liberals espouse freedom of religion."

Let's check.


_Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Sounds a lot like this:
"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called *religious propaganda.*...Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more."  " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275



Liberals, the progeny of the Bolsheviks._


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




The restriction is actually a law, .....and it isn't exclusive to religious institutions.

Lyndon Johnson is best known as America's 36th president, the Texan who assumed the office when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Texas politics can be rough, and Johnson knew how to play that game. Therein lies the origin of the "Johnson amendment."

The restriction was championed by LBJ in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved.

Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations, including groups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. *It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics.*

There was no record of any debate around the amendment.

"The logical argument favoring such an amendment is that those corporations qualifying for the section 501(c)(3) tax subsidy should not be permitted to directly or indirectly use that subsidy to support candidates for office," said Michael Hone in the Case Western article.

However it was likely, he said, that "Johnson was motivated by a desire to exact revenge on the foundation he believed supported his opponent and to prevent it and other nonprofit corporations from acting similarly in the future."

LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups

Wasn't Johnson a religious man?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




*Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.*

Here are the facts:

_Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.


Now.....answer the questions:

What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


And, 2, how does this Liberal attack on the first amendment differ from what Stalin did:

"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called *religious propaganda.*...Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." 



Admit it.....'Liberal' has become just a camouflage of fascism.
_


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



*Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.*

The law prevents tax free organizations from engaging in partisan politics if they want to keep their tax free status.  It in no way relates to the anti religious Soviet law you describe.

Fascism has come to America wrapped in a flag.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





"The law prevents tax free organizations from engaging in partisan politics ..."

1. _What possible compelling government interest could this represent????




And, 2, how does this Liberal attack on the first amendment differ from what Stalin did:

"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called *religious propaganda.*...Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." 





Just in case you've never read the first amendment....

Congress* shall *make *no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech,* or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

'shall'....not 'should.'

'no law'.....not 'a few laws'


Can we agree that 'Liberal' is just another name for fascist?_


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



"It's important to note that the prohibition is not just restricted to religious institutions. It's nonprofit charitable organizations in general."

BTW in 1954 both the Presidency and Congress were controlled by Republicans.

Pastors To Protest IRS Rules on Political Advocacy


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





_Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


Asked several times about the reason for this silencing of religious officials, you have patently ignored the query.

I'll assume it is because it proves exactly what I stated: Liberals oppose free speech, the Constitution, and the religious.


The witness is excused....you've served your purpose.


And, it fits seamlessly with the premise of this thread.
The Left needs to silence any who are believers.
_


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?



No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?
> ...


Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


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





7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered* "fact" ,* because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


 Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....*there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?*

*Nope.*


a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even o*ne 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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of *artificial selection* and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...*to create* a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism*? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.*




b. *New species in the lab?* *Nope.*

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, *we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 

That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… 

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is *zero proof of Darwin's theory*....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Damn you are dumb.  It is not my job to sort out your assault on logic and the English language, nor do I feel any need to do so. Again, you are free to stand outside and smack your head against the window all you like.  Your self-serving stream of bullshit has zero effect on anything.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





The thread stated 

a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*

*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *

*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.





Now....was there any of the above that an imbecile like you is prepared to deny?
Or....is Darwin's theory still a 'fact'????

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


_7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered* "fact" ,* because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."_

Liar

Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows. You keep dishonestly arguing against "Darwin's theory" that no longer exists.

Nowhere in post #18 is the word Darwin


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Of course he is lying.  He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy.  That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Where's the lie, monkey?


When you check post #18, you'll see that the only liar here is you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Ohhhhhh.....so you admit that that is what you wrote.


This:
_In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. *And it's a theory now considered "fact" ,* because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."_

Excellent.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


yes, i wrote it about evolutionary theory, which has progressed beyond Darwin's first theory.  And you tried to misrepresent me so that you could create a false contradiction.  And you use these weak, transparent charlatan's tactics, because you are a dishonest fraud  who knows less than nothing about evolution, and you have no other tools at your disposal.


No, you have not mounted any actual challenge to accepted theories.  yes, you are embarrassing yourself.  yes, there is a reason that the pinnacle of your achievement in this embarrassing effort will be to anonymously post on internet forums, where nobody can laugh you out of the room.  Enjoy your lot in life... this is it, and it's not getting any better for you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





".... fallacy."

You proved that everything I posted is true and accurate by being unable to dispute any of this"

The thread stated
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?





Any "fallacy" in there?

Of not.....you'll prove it in your next post.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




"...has progressed beyond Darwin's first theory. "

Put your Dinaro where you put your dinner, you imbecile: what's the new theory.....????


Cat got your tongue????



And.....I've quoted you accurately:
_"It's a scientific theory. *And it's a theory now considered "fact" ,* because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

Oh, look who is poising to declare victory.... again.  Strange, all of your victories are "piling up", yet you are still a deviant hack who gets scraped off of a scientist's shoe.  I wonder if your victories are just imagined?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Now....where are those 'fallacies' you claimed?


You were lying, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Where's the lie, monkey?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2017)

you just tell yourself whatever you like. we both know that is what you are going to do, anyway.  I mean, if a moron with no knowledge or experience in this topic can somehow convince himself he has outsmarted the global scientific community.... well, then that moron can pretty much convince himself of _anything._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2017)

Another of PC's idiotic threads about....well about his obsession with everything.

God she is an idiot.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> you just tell yourself whatever you like. we both know that is what you are going to do, anyway.  I mean, if a moron with no knowledge or experience in this topic can somehow convince himself he has outsmarted the global scientific community.... well, then that moron can pretty much convince himself of _anything._




You claimed Darwin's theory was a fact.

I showed that it is neither proven, nor scientific.

You claimed there was a new theory...but couldn't come up with one.

You said I posted fallacies.....but couldn't find any.


Here's the truth:
Everything I post is 100% true, accurate and correct....but you are so far gone in you indoctrination that you will never be able to find your way back to rectitude or knowledge. 

Sad, but true.


I was just having fun slappin' you around.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Another of PC's idiotic threads about....well about his obsession with everything.
> 
> God she is an idiot.




OK....I know it's gilding the lily, but let's prove what a dunce you are.


The thread stated the following:

a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


* Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?*


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


He obviously is another conservative with an opiate problem, bigly.

An analogy would be him arguing against atomic physics cuz the very first theory was that atoms were solid spheres.

But his insanity goes farther. He also claims that evolution is a communist and authoritarian socialist conspiracy theory against America itself.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
> Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:
> 
> ...



How high is up?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...





I made you back down from claiming that I lied, huh?

That makes you a liar, doesn't it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...




Amazing how much you bring to a thread......not.


----------



## cnm (Oct 9, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Science = communism.  You heard it here.


I understand it all now.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT


----------



## cnm (Oct 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am unmoved. Fools like you declare victory always. Funny how you think you win every battle, despite losing the war 100 years ago.


Self declared victory is best victory...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Your lies are all throughout this thread. Your lie in question is in my post #64. Darwin: Far From Science

It is your turn to really impress me. Tell me about the current evolutionary theory. Prove you "know" what you are lying about.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




Let's check, monkey boy....you write this:

_7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered* "fact" ,* because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."_

Liar

Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows. You keep dishonestly arguing against "Darwin's theory" that no longer exists.

Nowhere in post #18 is the word Darwin.


You've really outed yourself as the liar I said you are: there is only one theory at issue in the entire thread.



"Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows."

Watch me smash this custard pie in your kisser: Remember when I wrote this?

.... *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* in order for a theory to be accepted.


*Darwin's theory is not science at all.
It's the politics of the Left.*
There are no experiments documenting the change of one species to another, nor producing a new species.

And....the fossil record does not have evidence of same....as Darwin himself admitted.



Soooo....time for you to admit you're a lying imbecile?

G'head....confession is good for the soul.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your reply should have started with "Yes, you are correct. I did lie, sorry."



> "Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows."
> 
> Watch me smash this custard pie in your kisser: Remember when I wrote this?
> 
> ...



Your lie #2

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




Except that is not evolution....no new species formed.


OK.....here's the lesson you're begging for:

Darwin's theory is eminently simply to state: the accumulation of tiny, random mutations, accumulate until a species is so altered that it can be *recognized as a new species.*

One 'red flag' to all should be that, in over a century and a half, " The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


But confusion of what speciation is has led to* numerous false claims by Darwin enthusiasts. So....*


1. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”  Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” _American Scientist_ 85 (1997): 516-518.

2. Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are  passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.

But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:

a. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations  evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin.  A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

3. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."

speciation definition

The _Encyclopedia Britannica_ simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 9, 2017)

8. I've given the imbeciles chance after chance to find any lies, errors or inaccuracies in the thread.


Nada.



Sooooo.....as there is not a single error or incorrect statement in the thread, the argument against Darwin's theory......how do you Liberals feel now if you've been tricked into accepting it as 'fact'?




Sadly, for many, the indoctrination is indelible....and the facts will make nary a difference.

If you're a Liberal, and you can't dispute what runs counter to your programming....you'll simple ignore it.

...and maybe claim that the one providing the view that smashes what you've been ordered to believe is a racist, rightwinger, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, ....or whatever the insult du jour is.





The Left has been using that method for decades... The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,”  “yell ‘McCarthyism!”

Same ploy, different day.




In summary:

a. Darwin's theory is valuable to Marxists, Liberals, Leftists as a weapon against belief, religion, and morality.


b. Far from a 'fact,' the theory has no proof to its credit, and, in reality, there are many observations that run counter to the 'theory.'


c. There is no proof of Darwinian evolution...yet it is taught as though it is a proven fact.


QED....Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



_Except that is not evolution....no new species formed._

*Evolution*
Home » Evolution

*Definition*

_noun, plural: evolutions_

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary

You have no clue

Speciation - Wikipedia

Speciation is a subset of evolution


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

*Prediction 5.6: Speciations*
The standard phylogenetic tree illustrates countless speciation events; each common ancestor also represents at least one speciation event. Thus we should be able to observe actual speciation, if even only very rarely. Current estimates from the fossil record and measured mutational rates place the time required for full reproductive isolation in the wild at ~3 million years on average (Futuyma 1998, p. 510). Consequently, observation of speciation in nature should be a possible but rare phenomenon. However, evolutionary rates in laboratory organisms can be much more rapid than rates inferred from the fossil record, so it is still possible that speciation may be observed in common lab organisms (Gingerich 1983).

*Confirmation:*
Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and _S. malheurensis_).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the _Drosophila_ species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many _Drosophila_ speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in _Drosophila_ has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, _Nereis acuminata_ (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian _et al_. 2000).

More detail and many references are given in the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ. 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 9, 2017)

Conservatives have tried to make science political, that I will admit


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 9, 2017)

Evolution is nearly the entire support for biology. To attack evolution with your dumb faith is to attack the entire science of biology.

You're speaking voodoo.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Conservatives have tried to make science political, that I will admit




It is like debating the taliban or isis. They're the same general thing and they hold faith above all else. Critical thought has been wiped from their minds as they're puppets.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 9, 2017)

And Darwin is the very thing science is all about. real evidenced and critcal thinking that led to the development of a theory that has stood the test of time.

Politicalchick is such a dumb bitch that she doesn't realize that her religious trash has no basis in reality and she'd probably end up in the kitchen barefoot if she got her way.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh joy, another fun thread!
> ...


PC, you have never, ever, brought anything to the table other than willful ignorance and dishonesty.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




"PC, you have never, ever, brought anything to the table other than willful ignorance and dishonesty."


Let's check.

This is what I brought to the table in this thread alone......

....are you able to dispute, refute, deny.....any......ANY....of it?

If not, you're simply a lying windbag and should change your avi to same.



Here ya' go:

The thread stated

a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "*evolutionary fantasy."*

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*


*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *


*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?



* Speak up, you LYING WINDBAG!!!*


----------



## theHawk (Oct 10, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Science = communism.  You heard it here.



Wrong.  Lies = Communism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 10, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> Science = communism.  You heard it here.


Evolution isnt science


----------



## fncceo (Oct 10, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> millions of people really thought he was sitting on top of Mount Olympus



You're saying he's not?!  Die, heretic!


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> In summary:
> 
> a. Darwin's theory is valuable to Marxists, Liberals, Leftists as a weapon against belief, religion, and morality.
> 
> ...


Bible literalists can not accept evolution since it provides an alternative to creationist dogma.  They confuse, on purpose or by ignorance, evolution (theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations) with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859.  Evolution is considered by science to be a fact proven by overwhelming evidence.  Darwin's book postulates a simple mechanism for evolution that has been shown to be only partially true, the reality being much more complex.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> 4. Many of the stone-headed have been* tricked into accepting Darwinism, *and eschewing religion, which means eschewing morality and having to answer for one's deeds to some higher authority than the state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go figure, yourself, you silly little bitch. 






*Ediacaran period*
Known also as the Vendian, the Ediacaran was the final stage of Pre-Cambrian time. All life in the Ediacaran was soft-bodied - there were no bones, shells, teeth or other hard parts. As soft bodies don't fossilise very well, remains from this period are rare. The world's first ever burrowing animals evolved in the Ediacaran, though we don't know what they looked like. The only fossils that have been found are of the burrows themselves, not the creatures that made them. This period gets its name from the Ediacara Hills in Australia, where famous fossils of this age were found.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You can prove that you have your head firmly in your ass. All your fucking stupid cut and pastes prove is that you are too ignorant to post real science. And just stick your persnickity nose up in the air over my language. Your kind of willful ignorance deserves that kind of language, and a slap on your fat ass.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ken Ham, tax money thief:
> 
> Town expected flood of business after Noah’s Ark opened. So far, it’s a trickle.


If the fools gave the con man a cent, they are getting what they deserve.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 4. Many of the stone-headed have been* tricked into accepting Darwinism, *and eschewing religion, which means eschewing morality and having to answer for one's deeds to some higher authority than the state.
> ...




Watch your language...you're not talking to your family.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > In summary:
> ...




"Bible literalists can not accept evolution....."

The discussion is not about 'evolution.'

It is about Darwinian Evolution.

Too nuanced for you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





When you realized that you could not refute a single thing in my thesis, you do what every Liberal does.....

...default to vulgarity.



Wanna try again?


The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!





I do so love watching the fool's blood boil until it vaporized into a fine, red, mist.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> The discussion is not about 'evolution.'
> 
> It is about Darwinian Evolution.
> 
> Too nuanced for you?


Apparently so.  Maybe you could explain the difference?  Are we talking about the current state of scientific knowledge or are we taking a stroll 100+ years into the past to critique the work of a famous scientist who, everyone admits, got some things wrong?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
> Then, quoted Lenin to document same.


True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist.



PoliticalChic said:


> b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.


You use a politician's view.  A politician from over 200 years ago.
argumentum ad verecundiam. (Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument)



PoliticalChic said:


> c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.


Just about every living thing has abilities that differ from those of other organisms.  And that is just what you'd expect from evolution since organisms would otherwise have to directly compete and one or the other would become extinct.



PoliticalChic said:


> d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*


A scientist from 100+ years ago?  Wallace had some personal issues with Darwin but he independently came up with essentially the same theory so whatever problems he had with Darwin were minor.



PoliticalChic said:


> e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."


Yet on the major point of evolutionary decent from a common ancestor, he was in complete agreement.



PoliticalChic said:


> f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


So?  A completely science-free statement.  Humanists were quick to endorse Galileo and Copernicus while Religious authorities condemned them.  We know who was right.



PoliticalChic said:


> g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


The Scientific Method has been applied to evolution many times and has always revealed the truth of it.  The dating and examination of every fossil is a test of the theory.



PoliticalChic said:


> h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*


Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.



PoliticalChic said:


> *i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


The fossil record has only been read for less than 200 years.  The earth is constantly destroying fossils.  It is hardly surprising to learn it is incomplete.  



PoliticalChic said:


> j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *


We never directly observed an atom.  Do you doubt they exist?  Why?



PoliticalChic said:


> *k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
> That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*


Recorded history is less than 5,000 years.  Not many generations of humans in that time but I'd bet there are new species of virus (HIV?).
As for domestication, have we tried?  What is the value of turning a cow into a dog?

I'm afraid it is your attack on Darwin that is pretty far from science.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The discussion is not about 'evolution.'
> ...




Evolution is the idea.....not fact.....meant to explain the diversity of life on the planet.

Darwin's theory.....proven erroneous....is a political ploy by Leftists/Marxists/atheists meant to weaken the people's faith, and replace it with a bending of the knee and neck to the state.

Marx and Engels believed it could be used to pretend that science had explained the origins of life.

It is the outgrowth of the French Revolution.....

a. "*If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century."
*French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

b.      In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will.
Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Darwin's theory.....proven erroneous....is a political ploy by Leftists/Marxists/atheists meant to weaken the people's faith, and replace it with a bending of the knee and neck to the state.



Copernicus's theory was also proven erroneous, was it also a political ploy to weaken the peoples beliefs?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin's theory.....proven erroneous....is a political ploy by Leftists/Marxists/atheists meant to weaken the people's faith, and replace it with a bending of the knee and neck to the state.
> ...




As you agree that Darwin's theory has been proven erroneous.....

....why is it taught in schools as though it were a fact?


Answer: Leftists, who control the schools at every level, recognize it as a political ploy to weaken the people's faith.


Why is that important?

*a. There is no God:*
"This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."The Schwarz Report | Essays



b. As one of his friends later recalled, "Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov (Lenin) had the courage to come out and say openly that famine would have numerous positive results...Famine, he explained....would bring about the next stage more rapidly, and usher in socialism, the stage that necessarily followed capitalism. Famine would also destroy faith, not only in the tsar, but in God, too." The Black Book of Communism, p.123-124.



c. Franklin Roosevelt: 
"I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." 
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Evolution is the idea.....not fact.....meant to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Darwin's theory.....proven erroneous....is a political ploy by Leftists/Marxists/atheists meant to weaken the people's faith, and replace it with a bending of the knee and neck to the state.


An eclectic mix of science, politics, and theology.  I'm still unclear on exactly what *you *mean by "Darwin's theory"?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is the idea.....not fact.....meant to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
> ...




My education is clearly greater in depth and breadth than yours....goes without saying.
It's the reason why you fall so short in your understanding of the world.


But...in light of your...shortcomings.....let's stick to this thread:

The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. *....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j. ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. *...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that your are prepared to deny?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Intelligent Design theory aka Creationism....proven erroneous....is a political ploy by Radical Islamic Terrorists/Rightists/Nazis/White Supremacists/Confederate Losers meant to weaken the people's knowledge, and replace it with a bending of the knee and neck to the state & money changers and seeks to install Sharia Law into the USofA under the new title of MAGA


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





MarkDuffy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




The thread never mentioned "Intelligent Design theory aka Creationism.."


BTW...."Intelligent Design theory aka Creationism.."... has never been 'proven erroneous.'
Nor has either been claimed as a 'fact."



But.....the thread did state this:

a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. *....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j. ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. *...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that your are prepared to deny?



You can run but your can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I have plenty of shortcomings but at least I'm willing and able to explain the meaning of the terms I use.  I'm beginning to think you have no idea what *your *term, "Darwin's theory", really means.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




1. So, based on your reticence, we can agree that all 11 items I stated are correct.

2.For purposes of clarity, *this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests*:


a. The *universal common ancestry* of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. *natural selection*, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




*If Darwin was correct*, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these *'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.*


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....*followed by simpler.*




So...you see, *if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true..*.and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

*This is not the case.*


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.




So.....do we agree? *Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!*


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> As you agree that Darwin's theory has been proven erroneous.....



As with Copernicus and his basic premise that the earth is not the center of the universe, Darwin's basic theory still holds true that life has evolved over time.  It was never about the origins of life but Origins of Species.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. So, based on your reticence, we can agree that all 11 items I stated are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2017)

The more we respond to this hack, the more legitimacy we give to the idea that rhetorical attacks, specious arguments, and trying to trip up non-scientists talking about a scientific theory actually presents a challenge to an accepted scientific theory.

It does not. This fool knows less than nothing about this topic, and would be helpless as a newborn without a YEC blog to plagiarize. This person represents no real challenge to evolution or to anyone mildly acquainted with logic.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. So, based on your reticence, we can agree that all 11 items I stated are correct.


Not at all.  You never even responded to my previous post.



PoliticalChic said:


> 2.For purposes of clarity, *this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests*:
> 
> a. The *universal common ancestry* of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
> 
> ...


I'm OK with  definitions a. and b. but Darwin's theory has decidedly NOT been proven erroneous.  At least by science.  I have no idea what a "partial accumulation" of traits mean.  Every organism is fully adapted to its environment and was very much alive at one time.



PoliticalChic said:


> To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
> 
> 3. "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
> Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74
> ...


This makes no sense.  Taxonomy is a man-made invention.  Every organism has a place on the tree of life complete with phyla, subphyla, classes, families, genera, and species.  We may not have enough information to place it in its correct phyla, subphyla, classes, families, genera, and species but that is our problem, not the organisms.



PoliticalChic said:


> So...you see, *if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true..*.and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.
> 
> *This is not the case.*


This is exactly the case.  The organisms are more complex than the bacteria and other one-celled organisms that preceded them.



PoliticalChic said:


> So.....do we agree? *Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!*


Nothing in either assemblage contradicts Darwin.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The more we respond to this hack, the more legitimacy we give to the idea that rhetorical attacks, specious arguments, and trying to trip up non-scientists talking about a scientific theory actually presents a challenge to an accepted scientific theory.
> 
> It does not. This fool knows less than nothing about this topic, and would be helpless as a newborn without a YEC blog to plagiarize. This person represents no real challenge to evolution or to anyone mildly acquainted with logic.


I have two reasons: to hone my understanding of both sides of the topic and to entertain myself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > The more we respond to this hack, the more legitimacy we give to the idea that rhetorical attacks, specious arguments, and trying to trip up non-scientists talking about a scientific theory actually presents a challenge to an accepted scientific theory.
> ...


Fair enough....I admit, I did the same. I think I'm past that. I just correct lies, at this point, and ridicule them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > As you agree that Darwin's theory has been proven erroneous.....
> ...




Seems you don't know what Darwin's theory is.....that must be why you keep trying to change the subject.


Drop back when we get around to a subject more in line with your expertise.....favorite Crayola, or monster truck vids.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


haha.... riiiight... it's everyone else who is ignorant and crazy.  All these scientists don't understand their own discoveries and theories, and they need you to explain them back to them.  You are delusional.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




"I just correct lies, at this point, and ridicule them."



This is what I've posted....


The thread stated
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?



As you have been forced to attest.....there are no lies, are there.

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


You're not getting this.  Nobody gives a shit what a know-nothing religious nutball posts about accepted scientific theories.  Nobody.  Maybe your mommy.  But nobody else.  Anywhere, ever.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. So, based on your reticence, we can agree that all 11 items I stated are correct.
> ...





Everything you have written is either false, or so vague as to be juvenile.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



"All these scientists don't understand their own discoveries...."

Yet you couldn't name any.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hogwash.  Your number one premise of lumping Liberals in with the Godless States like the former USSR was utterly destroyed long ago. Dismantling your specious speculation about Darwin's theory is just icing on the cake.


----------



## jillian (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
> Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:
> 
> ...


nice cut and paste.

all stupid... but well done!


----------



## jillian (Oct 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



the same way the wackadoodle strings together stupid cut and paste jobs is how she thinks... confused and convoluted.

she has too much time on her hands.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 11, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Everything you have written is either false, or so vague as to be juvenile.


Nice dodge, I'm sure no one has ever said that about your OP.  I see you got nothing to offer when you have to think for yourself.  Maybe I should re-post it a few more times, would that help?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Of course #1 is correct.....but, you're never going to admit the truth, because it skewers your worldview.
BTW....Communism is international socialism.....and it is alive and thriving in the Democrats' America.


Glad we agree that the other 10 items are indisputable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


How's the anti-evolution campaign going, professor? bwahahahaha


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

jillian said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...




You never bring anything to the table....probably because you never do much thinking....but here's your chance:

The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?



Warning!!!

....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Everything you have written is either false, or so vague as to be juvenile.
> ...




The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





PoliticalChic said:


> a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
> Then, quoted Lenin to document same.


True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist.



PoliticalChic said:


> b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.


You use a politician's view.  A politician from over 200 years ago.
argumentum ad verecundiam. (Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument)



PoliticalChic said:


> c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.


Just about every living thing has abilities that differ from those of other organisms.  And that is just what you'd expect from evolution since organisms would otherwise have to directly compete and one or the other would become extinct.



PoliticalChic said:


> d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*


A scientist from 100+ years ago?  Wallace had some personal issues with Darwin but he independently came up with essentially the same theory so whatever problems he had with Darwin were minor.



PoliticalChic said:


> e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."


Yet on the major point of evolutionary decent from a common ancestor, he was in complete agreement.



PoliticalChic said:


> f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


So?  A completely science-free statement.  Humanists were quick to endorse Galileo and Copernicus while Religious authorities condemned them.  We know who was right.



PoliticalChic said:


> g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


The Scientific Method has been applied to evolution many times and has always revealed the truth of it.  The dating and examination of every fossil is a test of the theory.



PoliticalChic said:


> h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*


Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.



PoliticalChic said:


> *i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


The fossil record has only been read for less than 200 years.  The earth is constantly destroying fossils.  It is hardly surprising to learn it is incomplete.



PoliticalChic said:


> j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *


We never directly observed an atom.  Do you doubt they exist?  Why?



PoliticalChic said:


> *k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
> That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*


Recorded history is less than 5,000 years.  Not many generations of humans in that time but I'd bet there are new species of virus (HIV?).
As for domestication, have we tried?  What is the value of turning a cow into a dog?

Since you like to see the same thing reposted over and over I thought I'd oblige.  At least until you attempted to rebut instead of dismiss.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





"True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist."


1. There is no distinction between science and politics.....except in the smallest of minds....uneducated and uninformed folks,....you.

*Antonio Gramsci,*  Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that _all_ life is "political."



2. In October 1919, Lenin paid a secret visit to the laboratory of the great physiologist I. P. Pavlov, a Russian physiologist known chiefly for the concept of the conditioned reflex. In his classic experiment, he found that a hungry dog can be trained to associate the sound of a bell with food and will salivate at the sound even in the absence of food. 
Lenin wanted to find out if his work on the conditional reflexes of the brain might help the Bolsheviks control European behaviour. _“I want the masses of Russia to follow a Communistic pattern of thinking and reacting,” _Lenin explained.  *Pavlov was astounded*. *It seemed that Lenin wanted him to do for humans what he had already done for dogs*.
_“Do you mean that you would like to standardise the population of Russia? Make them all behave in the same way?” _he asked. _“Exactly” _replied Lenin. _“*Man can be corrected. Man can be made what we want him to be.*”… Orlando Figes, "A People's Tragedy," p.732-733_


----------



## Eaglewings (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
> Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:
> 
> ...



This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it..




Many Christians are finally waking up to the fact that people like Pat Robertson scammed them and praying in from of a camera like Ted Cruz did, doesn't automatically give him the votes from the bible belt people..



1. I personally know many many left voting Christians who are not sucked into the fact that your party does not make you a good/bad christian..

2. I went to a christian conference  once where there were thousands of scientists..

3.  Your stupid theory is about 20 years old when these Pat Robertson people hy-jacked the right wing party..


.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Lets just say we completely disagree.


----------



## Eaglewings (Oct 12, 2017)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The funny thing about Darwin and Natural Selection is that the Left fully supports it (as do I, until evidence disputing it arises), yet they adamantly refuse to allow the process to proceed without their direct interference.



Tell me factually how do you know it is the lefts view? Here you are a republican supporting it..haaa so funny..

.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist."
> 
> 
> 1. There is no distinction between science and politics.....except in the smallest of minds....uneducated and uninformed folks,....you.
> ...


You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics.  You obviously do not.  What I did not realize is that you share this position with communists and liberals.  If you think I have a small mind, you apparently think they have great minds.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

Eaglewings said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...






"This is complete bullshit... and of coarse you are sucked right into it.."

Wow....vulgarity and misspelling in one short sentence.
Clearly, you are a genius.


51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.
Scientists and Belief


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




"Lets just say we completely disagree."

Thank Heaven!

'Else, I'd have to rethink my position.



And let's remember the defining factor in our individual beliefs is that I rely on facts, knowledge and insight while you rely on dogma and propaganda.

Be well.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist."
> ...



"You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics.  You obviously do not."

Of course I don't......it is the explanation for the bogus Global Warming Scheme.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics.  You obviously do not."
> 
> Of course I don't......it is the explanation for the bogus Global Warming Scheme.


Pinko!  I can't say I'm surprised you don't believe in Global Warming.  Off topic maybe but I'm curious why.  You don't believe it is happening at all?  You don't believe it is caused by humans?  You don't believe it is possible for it to happen?  You don't believe it has ever happened?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "You are correct that in my small mind I see a distinction between science and politics.  You obviously do not."
> ...



No Global Warming......Global Governance.


More proof that Gramschi was correct.....everything is political.

The greatest supporter of the scheme is the United Nations....which was formed by Joseph Stalin.

You didn't know that, did you.







Recognize this?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say I'm surprised you don't believe in Global Warming.  Off topic maybe but I'm curious why.  You don't believe it is happening at all?  You don't believe it is caused by humans?  You don't believe it is possible for it to happen?  You don't believe it has ever happened?
> ...


Duh.  That should have been obvious to me.  You don't believe in climate science for political reasons.  So where are all those left-wing glaciers retreating to, the USSR?


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> And let's remember the defining factor in our individual beliefs is that I rely on facts, knowledge and insight while you rely on dogma and propaganda.



Lets just say that you accuse me of what you do.  Typical pseudo conservative tactic.  

Keep pretending you're winning.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > And let's remember the defining factor in our individual beliefs is that I rely on facts, knowledge and insight while you rely on dogma and propaganda.
> ...




No prob.


----------



## Eaglewings (Oct 12, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You are claiming that the left-wings are not Christians   Have fun with that ~ you are a closed minded moron who has your nose in the air at the rest of humankind because no on except for God is a perfect as you...

Enjoy


.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 12, 2017)

Eaglewings said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...




"....no on except for God is a perfect as you...



Hmmmm......

There just may be some truth there.....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 12, 2017)

Darwins theory of evolution explains life on this planet
God = belief and doesn't explain anything

A belief in god is the furthest thing from science.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Darwins theory of evolution explains life on this planet
> God = belief and doesn't explain anything
> 
> A belief in god is the furthest thing from science.


 


Actually, HeadFullaRocks, Darwin's theory has been shown to be the furthest thing from science.


The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.


And he writes......

1. "... I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because *it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds. *

2. *Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.*

3. Darwin's landmark work..._The Origin of Species_, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, *no one has seen it happen in the laboratory,* unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more. To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth."
blogorrhea: Scientists should be humble, not arrogant]



4. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
blogorrhea: Scientists should be humble, not arrogant


Ain't that the truth.
See it in this thread.

The less informed they are,the more irate they become when Darwin is criticized.


5. When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; *in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”*
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.
> 
> And he writes......


Despite all the issues Kas Thomas has with scientists and evolution, he is NOT a creationist.  What does that tell you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.
> ...




Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; *in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”*
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.


You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true.  Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.
> ...





Why are bringing up 'creationists'?

The point I've made and proven is that Darwinian theory has been proven false.

Dunces....raise your paw.....react to said truth in the way you have....and, in this instance, attempt to change the subject.


When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; *in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”*
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities

QED, Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Again?  You can't disprove Darwin's theory by quoting scientists that believe it to be true. Darwin, Wallace, Chen, Thomas, etc.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


In the end, you are just an offensive little know nothing. Imagine the nerve it requires for an uneducated slob to insult the life's work of meticulous scientists honestly seeking knowledge. You aren't fit to even mention these people's names.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





But I have disproven it.


1. Darwin's erroneous thesis posits that organisms began as the simplest and grow, gradually, into more and more complex ones.....with each level producing new species.


You should read more carefully, as I posted this earlier:

2.For purposes of clarity, *this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests*:


a. The *universal common ancestry* of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. *natural selection*, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




*If Darwin was correct*, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these *'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.*


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....*followed by simpler.


Again?

"The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species)."*


Perhaps you need a dictionary.





4. "*Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "*
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013


This is usually where you try to change the subject, isn't it?

As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...*anatomically they were often even more complex. "*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




I may be little, but I know everything.

You helped prove that.


Wanna try again?


The thread stated 
a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.* 

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'* 


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.* 
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> But I have disproven it.
> 
> 1. Darwin's erroneous thesis posits that organisms began as the simplest and grow, gradually, into more and more complex ones.....with each level producing new species.
> 
> ...



Sorry but a. is accepted by science as proven fact.  Although there may be other mechanisms, natural selection is also accepted by science as proven fact.



PoliticalChic said:


> *If Darwin was correct*, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these *'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.*


This makes little biological sense.  Are you talking about transitional fossils?  If so there are plenty of examples.  Archaeopteryx has features not found in living animals.



PoliticalChic said:


> The sudden appearance of complex organism.....*followed by simpler.*
> 
> This is usually where you try to change the subject, isn't it?
> 
> As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...*anatomically they were often even more complex. "*


This is a straw man since evolution does not dictate simple-to-complex development.  There are plenty of examples of organisms becoming 'simpler' by losing functions no longer needed.  Whales have mostly lost their hind limbs.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > But I have disproven it.
> ...




You're really a moron.....but you get a gold star from the Leftist.....they need folks like you.


I just proved that the fossil record shows the exact opposite of what Darwin supposed...and you post an "Is not, isssss nooootttttt!!!' post.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> I just proved that the fossil record shows the exact opposite of what Darwin supposed...and you post an "Is not, isssss nooootttttt!!!' post.


Enlighten me then, what did Darwin suppose?  You posted two parts of evolution theory, common descent and natural selection, that are NOT disproved by your straw men, ("partial accumulation of said new traits" and "The sudden appearance of complex organism.....*followed by simpler*").  "Sudden" being millions of years of course.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I just proved that the fossil record shows the exact opposite of what Darwin supposed...and you post an "Is not, isssss nooootttttt!!!' post.
> ...




This will be the third time....but, I understand your....limitations.

Now...read carefully:

In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated *his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones *via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.." 
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.


In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)


But *the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction*. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.



Get it yet?

While Darwin has been proven wrong.....government schools still teach it as a fact.
Why is that?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)
> 
> But *the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction*. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.


*The Nature of the Fossil Record*

It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. This is precisely what we expect from the following two facts:

(1) Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten by scavengers rather than being buried intact in rock layers. Of the remains that do get fossilized, many are later eroded away, or smeared beyond recognition in metamorphic transformations deep in the earth. This is more of an issue for older rock layers, such as the Cambrian and Precambrian, since they have had more time to be either raised up to the surface for erosion or to be buried more deeply under other rocks. Also, of all the potential fossil-bearing rocks, only a small fraction of them are available near the surface for paleontologists to examine.

(2) Basic population genetics shows that it is difficult for new genetic mutations to become established in very large populations. Thus, it is far more likely that a new species would develop within a small, isolated population, especially if that population is under some environmental stress that would favor genetic changes.


Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of _Darwin’s Doubt? _ (And you chided me for bringing up creationism)  
Here is a scientific study of diversity and disparity if you're interested.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)
> ...




"It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."

I already proved that.


The rest of your post is spin.
*Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


The premise of the thread is that Darwin was incorrect, and you've just agreed that the fossil record refutes Darwin.
And, as a result, one should question why government teaches his theory as fact.


Now....why are you back?*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)
> ...





Your link should be questioned, as it is provably false.
This:
"Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten..."


Actually....

 " The Lower Cambrian *sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues *and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestiveglands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.



Next!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)
> ...




"Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of _Darwin’s Doubt? _(And you chided me for bringing up creationism) "

Are there any of the facts I provided disputable?

No?

Soooo....this is your latest attempt to change the subject?

BTW....I read his book: he documents everything he says.

Which books on the subject have you read?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Your link should be questioned, as it is provably false.
> This:
> "Very, very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten..."
> 
> ...


Actually both are true and they don't contradict each other.  How many mice have walked the earth?  How many have been fossilized?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."


Except that truism does not invalidate evolution, it only points to the gaps in the fossil record.  No fossil has ever been found that invalidates evolution.  And there have been trillions found.



PoliticalChic said:


> *Now....why are you back?*


To bring light to the world.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of _Darwin’s Doubt? _(And you chided me for bringing up creationism) "
> 
> Are there any of the facts I provided disputable?


I think I've dispute most of your 'facts' and all of your conclusions.



PoliticalChic said:


> Which books on the subject have you read?


Mostly textbooks from my college days.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "Is your source for this assertion Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, publisher of _Darwin’s Doubt? _(And you chided me for bringing up creationism) "
> ...




On the contrary.

You've simple refused to accept the facts.


Is this your pic?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> You've simple refused to accept the facts.


Please, give me one FACT I've refused to accept.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 13, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You've simple refused to accept the facts.
> ...




You posted this:

"It is a general truism that a species appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species."


Proves my premise.

Why are you still scrambling?




I ended any other possible cachet for Darwin with this:

 "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.


Why are you back?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I don't think I ever refused to accept the fact that a may species appear suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species.  There are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.



PoliticalChic said:


> I ended any other possible cachet for Darwin with this:
> 
> "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.
> 
> Why are you back?


Another fact I never disputed.  I only pointed out that it proves nothing.  We've never seen an atom but we're pretty sure they exist.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Oct 13, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
> Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:
> 
> ...


The original post proves nothing.  Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes, as religion has absolutely nothing to do with science; science is only a "belief" system of an "invisible" deity that created everything.  Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are.  Despite your protestations, just saying a deity exists, proves nothing and there is so far, ample evidence of hominids going through physical changes.  Europeans clearly show via DNA, that we are part Neanderthal, a type of hominid and over time, we may find additional evidence of our origins via additional findings.  When one jumps to causes being a result of deities, one just gives him/herself less credibility.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 14, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...




" Oh, and by the way, public schools don't teach "anti-religion," they just don't bring religion into the science classes,...."

Of course they do, you dunce.....they teach the most destructive of religions....Liberalism.


You're proof of that:
Darwin's theory is based on faith....nothing more.

Neither is there proof of same in the fossil record, nor in the laboratory.
Yet your believe it indubitably. 


Bet you're a government school grad, huh?

Ever read a book?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 14, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...





"Science is only out there trying to show, via various observations and testing, why things are the way they are."

Gads, you're a dunce.

_1._ "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.



2. Here's where 'new species' are produced.

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of *artificial selection* and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...*to create* a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will." 
Leon Trotsky



3. BTW....Hillary Clinton said the same thing.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 14, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
> ...





I've been specific in this thread....

The thread stated

a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't:           "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. * ....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j.  ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. * ...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now...*.**was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny...*.or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2017)

How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!

List of all the people in the world shocked by this:


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 14, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!
> 
> List of all the people in the world shocked by this:




Why have you slithered back???

Did you forget how I embarrassed you twice...thrice.....showing that you were unable to deny any the facts that I posted in this thread????


OK...one more time: wipe the egg off your kisser and I'll let you try again:

The thread stated

a. In order for *communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism,* whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of _Nature _magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, *"physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.*

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. *the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'*


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as *a valid argument against the views here entertained."*



*i. *....*many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day....* with *no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record,* most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j. ...even o*ne animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *



*k. *...*we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.*
That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...*

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now...*.was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny...*.or did I just rip you a new one?

Speak up, moron!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > How surprising that the magical, anti-science Shaman hates schools!
> ...


I told you, I'm just here to ridicule you and your hilariously stupid conspiracy theory. You know, I made a thread specifically for this idiotic nonsense. Mods should merge.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 14, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




You dunce,....every time I expose the facts and you scurry away from them.....your post becomes a boomerang.
You're just too dumb to realize it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Yes, you are so smart, and everyone else is so dumb. Your anti-education, anti-science path has created a mental giant in you . yep, makes sense.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 14, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





Let's just say I'm somewhere between you, and smart.


Were you able to refute any of those facts yet?

No?

Keep trying, dolt.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 14, 2017)

What's funny about this retarded thread is there's ZERO evidence for this god or the method such want about creating this life.

I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history. What can this **** show to prove that she got a better theory??? Nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> What's funny about this retarded thread is there's ZERO evidence for this god or the method such want about creating this life.
> 
> I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history. What can this **** show to prove that she got a better theory??? Nothing.


Well of course not. That's the most "special" thing about these cackling deniers: They know less than nothing about this topic and about how science works, so they actually think they are challenging accepted scientific theories by regurgitating blogs on a mesage board.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> What's funny about this retarded thread is there's ZERO evidence for this god or the method such want about creating this life.
> 
> I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history. What can this **** show to prove that she got a better theory??? Nothing.




"I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."


No you can't.....just as you can't stop lying or start learning.



"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.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."
> 
> No you can't.....just as you can't stop lying or start learning.


Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution.  There are no other theories that even come close.  The truth may not fit well with your ideology but that is not a problem with reality but with your ideology.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."
> ...




When you're as ignorant of the subject as you are, you'll say and believe anything.


"There are no other theories that even come close."

Here are a couple...

1.Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. 

Crick explains...
*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, 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,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144



2. Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by *Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. *These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, *were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. *Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109



Since there is as much 'scientific evidence' for the theories of these two geniuses as that of Darwinian evolution.....why your attachment to the one and not the others?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "I could show thousands upon thousands of papers and pieces of evidence of life evolving throughout earths history."
> ...




"Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. "

No, they don't, you dunce.

Not only do I say that....but numerous scientists in the field do as well.


And...as usual, I can prove everything I claim.

1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, _The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." 
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


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



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



Startin' to feel like a dupe about now?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. "
> 
> No, they don't, you dunce.
> 
> Not only do I say that....but numerous scientists in the field do as well.


I talked about fossils we have found while your quotes focused on fossils we haven't found.  Can I assume that means you agree with me?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "Actually every one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of evolution. "
> ...




'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

I showed that that is not the case.

Clean off your specs, and read slowly:


1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, _The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. *"There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." *
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


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



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (*Curator of Invertebrate Fossils,* Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



Once again, I achieve a victory over ignorance.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "There are no other theories that even come close."
> 
> Here are a couple...
> [...]
> Since there is as much 'scientific evidence' for the theories of these two geniuses as that of Darwinian evolution.....why your attachment to the one and not the others?


You are mixing your apples and your oranges.  The theories you listed propose how life first appeared on earth.  As I'm sure you've been told before, that has NOTHING to do with Darwinian evolution.  Darwinian evolution only operates on life already in existence.  However life first appeared, through natural processes, aliens, or the supernatural, from that initial life all life we currently see on our planet evolved.  Period.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> 'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.


 Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution.  You're welcome to ignore them since they don't support your argument but you don't know what fossils have yet to found.

I see you've reverted to a version of the "*God of the gaps*" argument.  We don't currently have evidence so the evidence cannot exist.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.
> ...




"Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution."

Consistent with every other post of yours, this one is wrong as well.




alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.
> ...



"Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution."

Actually....not a single one does.

'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.

I showed that that is not the case.

Clean off your specs, and read slowly:


1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, _The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. *"There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." *
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," _Science_, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


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



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (*Curator of Invertebrate Fossils,* Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



Once again, I achieve a victory over ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.

 "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature 
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. 
Bacteria, 
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, 
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 
18 hours. But* throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there 
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another*, in 
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical 
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess 
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. 
Since there is no evidence for 
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not 
surprising that there is* no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to 
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher 
multicellular organisms."                              *                                                              The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001 
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29 
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker 
BYLINE: Alan Linton


Yet, morons continue to march lock step with the Leftists who propagate the myth.



From the OP:
Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"

Amazing.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "Every fossil ever found does verify Darwinian evolution."
> 
> Actually....not a single one does.


If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution that goes back to a "God of the gap" fallacy.

If you're referring to fossils that have actually been found, I'm very curious as to which fossil you refer to.  Please don't include fossils from the Cambrian period.  There should be plenty of others to select from.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "Every fossil ever found does verify Darwinian evolution."
> ...




"If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."

Wow....I've reduced you to claiming not to understand what I posted in clear intelligible English.

I love it.


OK...let's pretend together.....you're claim is that if one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory.

You've been catapulted from dunce to liar.

Scientists,and recognized scientific journals verify what I said: *There is no fossil evidence for Darwin.


1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." 
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


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



5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.




In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!!*


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.
> 
> "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
> claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.
> ...


There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches.  There is NO evidence for Creationism but, since it is theologically, ideologically, and socially superior it must be true?  Let me think, should I believe you or my lying eyes?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.
> ...




"....blah blah blah... Darwin's Finches."

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops. 

No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
Nice retrograde movement, there.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > And,....not only is there no fossil evidence that prove Darwinian evolution.....but there is no evidence of any kind.
> ...





I've been happy to use your posts because they allow me to reveal how every myth and fable of the Left, and their ignorant followers, is false.

Educated folks know Darwinian evolution is a fabrication.


Soooo....you probably don't have the background to understand this evisceration, but....perhaps some will.

You, because you are a dunce, said this:
"There is abundant evidence for evolution, such as Darwin's Finches."


*1. "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches." "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," p. 10. by National Academy of Sciences

Pretty good example of how Darwin's theory may have begun as a scientific theory, but is now no more than ideology. Darwin's finches are an instance not of speciation, but of variation within a population.*



2. Darwin studied different finch species on the Galápagos Islands, later attributing the differences in beak size and feeding habits amongst these birds to evolution. Thirteen species live on the Galápagos Islands themselves and one species on Cocos Island, some 600 kilometers to the northeast. Although these birds are classified into 14 different species, they closely resemble one another, possessing similar body shapes, colors, and habits. According to the National Academy of Sciences book, these birds evolved from a single species that came from South America. Darwinists have been portraying these birds as an example of evolution by means of natural selection, and the best-known proof of evolution!

3. Darwin wrote in his _Origin of Species_ that the emergence of new species by means of natural selection is a very slow process, which is why it cannot be observed, but only inferred. But in an article in the April 1953 edition of _Scientific American_ magazine, the ornithologist David Lack claimed that the evolution of the birds on the Galápagos had taken place in the recent past, and that this could even be seen as proof of differentiation between species.

4. Peter Grant and his wife Rosemary Grant, two researchers who first went to the Galápagos Islands in 1973, with the aim of observing the effects of evolution on the finches, and carried out detailed studies and observations in the following years. They are thus remembered as experts on Darwin's finches. Peter Grant, in fact, suggested that the evolution of the Galápagos finches was still going on.  Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, October 1991, pp. 82-87

5. The Grant's studied individual members of the medium ground finch species on the Galápagos for years, and regularly monitored some 20,000 finches across several generations, kept careful records of both their beak size, and of the weather....rainfall...on the island. The amount of rain is of vital importance for the finches, which feed on seeds. In years when rain is plentiful, the finches can easily find the seeds they need to grow and reproduce. In years of drought, however, the number of seeds produced by plants is limited and may not be enough; as a result some finches die of starvation.

6. After a drought period, the average beak was approximately half a millimeter, or 5%, larger in 1977 compared to 1976. Taking this as their starting point, the researchers suggested those finches which fed solely on small seeds were weeded out, while those with beaks capable of breaking and opening larger and harder shells survived.

In an article in the journal Scientific American published in October 1991, Peter Grant declared that this research was direct proof of evolution. According to Grant, 20 selection events were sufficient to turn the medium ground finch into the large ground finch; if it is assumed that there is a drought every 10 years, then such a change could happen in as little as 200 years. Grant renewed his claims in subsequent articles, insisting that finches had verified Darwinism and proved that natural selection caused living things to evolve.  Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant, "Speciation and Hybridization in Island Birds," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351, 1996, pp. 765-772

7. But hold on..... With the rain there was an abundance of seeds, *and the beak size in medium ground finches returned to its previous value to before the drought of 1977. This astonished evolutionists, who were expecting regular growth in beak size. *In short, the findings show that there is no such thing as evolutionary change. Average beak size sometimes rises above a fixed value according to the seasons and sometimes falls-in other words, it fluctuates. As a result, there is no directional change.

Just as the English peppered moth population varied with the air pollution in the Industrial Revolution....the finch population varied with rainfall.

8.The 1999 booklet published by the National Academy describes Darwin's finches as "a particularly compelling example" of the origin of species. The booklet goes on to explain how the Grants and their colleagues showed "that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches," and that "if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years." Rather than mention *that selection was reversed after the drought, producing no long-term evolutionary change, the booklet simply omits this awkward fact. "  * 
Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution", pp. 174-175; See also National Academy of Sciences, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences", Second Edition, Washington DC, 1999

The above, and more detail, found here: http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php





Have I put you in your place enough....or do you need to be embarrassed even more?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> "If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."
> 
> Wow....I've reduced you to claiming not to understand what I posted in clear intelligible English.
> 
> ...


Not quite.  Are you saying that if you pick a rock anywhere....voila!!!....Proof of Darwin's theory being wrong?

What I'm saying is that there is an evolutionary tree of life based on descent from a common ancestor.  If one were to pick up a rock anywhere....voila!!!.... That fossil would fit into that evolutionary tree.  There are no 100 million year old elephants.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."
> ...




Stop sounding like a moron.....if you can.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "If you are saying that every fossil we have NOT found disproves evolution ...."
> ...





Did you just run away from the 'Darwin's Finches' are proof' argument????

Excellent.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> I've been happy to use your posts because they allow me to reveal how every myth and fable of the Left, and their ignorant followers, is false.
> 
> Educated folks know Darwinian evolution is a fabrication.
> 
> ...


Your paste snippets admit that environmental pressure changes the population.  Continuing pressure would logically lead to continuing changes.  Given enough time and pressure a new species will logically result.  Should the pressure reverse, so too would the changes reverse.  Logical.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Stop sounding like a moron.....if you can.


Good rebuttal.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> Did you just run away from the 'Darwin's Finches' are proof' argument????
> 
> Excellent.


'Darwin's Finches' are evidence.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
> Nice retrograde movement, there.


All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory.  I don't believe that quote is mine.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I've been happy to use your posts because they allow me to reveal how every myth and fable of the Left, and their ignorant followers, is false.
> ...





It's the very same population, you dunce.

"But after the drought, birds with smaller beaks flourished again, and the average beak size of the population returned to normal. No net evolution had occurred. No matter; Darwin’s finches became an icon of evolution that is still featured in most biology textbooks."
Darwin's Finches: The Hype Continues | Evolution News


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Stop sounding like a moron.....if you can.
> ...




There was nothing to rebut.

I was simply describing you accurately.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > No more 'fossils prove Darwin's theory.....'????
> ...




"All fossils found to date support Darwin's theory."

Link or lie?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Did you just run away from the 'Darwin's Finches' are proof' argument????
> ...




OMG!

An 'is not, issss nootttttt!!!' post.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> It's the very same population, you dunce.


Looks like more than one population to me.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Personal knowledge.  Also, if there were a fossil that contradicted Darwin's theory it would be the biggest news in a millennium.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


No a clarification.  I'm not sure you understand the difference between proof and evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





You've already been proven a _useful idiot...._.

...why are you back?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> You've already been proven a _useful idiot...._.
> 
> ...why are you back?


I like being useful.  And I never left.  Also I find untwisting your arguments to be great exercise.  Thanks.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 16, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You've already been proven a _useful idiot...._.
> ...




I'm more than satisfied to leave it to our readers....and there are quite a few....to gauge the difference between my linked, sources, and documented posts to your 'is not, isssss nooottttt!!!' variety.


OK with you?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Fine by me but I really doubt we have any readers, I'm pretty sure we emptied the room.


----------

