# The Most Famous Fakes In Science



## PoliticalChic

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications. 
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

*The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.


And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


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


Okay, you've convinced me.

Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


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


I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


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



Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.

There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.

Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.

*The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*


Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

R


PoliticalChic said:


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


There is one Darwin Theory that holds true though..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...



"I'll prove evolution to you."

Based on how dumb your post was, I doubt you could explain how the Cheerios got from your bowl to your mouth.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


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



You dumped the above fraud “quote” into the other nonsense thread you opened.

My, but you are a rather desperate fundie. 


Cutting and pasting the same fraud.

There is no valid link. This is a cheap creationist fraud that appears to link to a science journal but redirects elsewhere.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists(http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)





No link to _Nature_ exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dumped the above fraud “quote” into the other nonsense thread you opened.
> 
> My, but you are a rather desperate fundie.
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting the same fraud.
> 
> There is no valid link. This is a cheap creationist fraud that appears to link to a science journal but redirects elsewhere.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists(http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No link to _Nature_ exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
Click to expand...

"Experts" always seem astounded.  You would think after all this evolution of "science" they couldnt be astounded any more...


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
Click to expand...

So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?

How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers



Evolution is a FACT
God is a Theory


----------



## rightwinger

Complex creatures evolved from simple creatures

Undeniable FACT (Unless you are Home Skooled)


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
Click to expand...

Actually, it’s the hyper-religious whack jobs who see science and knowledge as a threat.


----------



## fncceo

Famous Physicist Prosper-Rene Blondlot and N-Rays ...

N ray - Wikipedia


----------



## fncceo

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons and Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion: Anatomy of a Scientific 'Fraud' | OpenMind


----------



## fncceo

Piltdown Man

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'll prove evolution to you."
> 
> Based on how dumb your post was, I doubt you could explain how the Cheerios got from your bowl to your mouth.
Click to expand...

Cheerios are for North Koreans. Go have another bowl.

I did prove evolution to you, but instead of challenging what I said " Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ago. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.", you attack me personally. Your concession is duly noted.


----------



## fncceo

Taz said:


> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.



While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.

One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.


----------



## Taz

fncceo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
Click to expand...

It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
Click to expand...



I did tell you.


It appears that you're too dense for this topic.


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you're a Christian.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
Click to expand...



That is not evolution.


----------



## Grumblenuts

What if you believed in unscientific principles.... gods, Spaghetti Monsters, or the like... and became aware that supporting such crap requires only lazy lies and fabrications like "FAITH"?
Would you continue to believe it?
Of course you do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
Click to expand...



Why is that of importance to you?

Are you planning to propose?


I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.



Can you take a hint?


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
Click to expand...


That's what I said.


----------



## fncceo

Taz said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
Click to expand...


I think you're being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> What if you believed in unscientific principles.... gods, Spaghetti Monsters, or the like... and became aware that supporting such crap requires only lazy lies and fabrications like "FAITH"?
> Would you continue to believe it?
> Of course you do.




This appears to be the usual dumb response that is one more 'I hate you.'

I can't tell you how deeply hurt I am.

Can you guess why I can't tell you that?


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said.
Click to expand...



No you didn't.


No new species in your post.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.
> 
> 
> No new species in your post.
Click to expand...

_
" While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation. "_


----------



## Moonglow

Science is like religion, the origins of the universe and mankind are all theories...


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
Click to expand...

That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.

You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.

You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in unscientific principles.... gods, Spaghetti Monsters, or the like... and became aware that supporting such crap requires only lazy lies and fabrications like "FAITH"?
> Would you continue to believe it?
> Of course you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be the usual dumb response that is one more 'I hate you.'
> 
> I can't tell you how deeply hurt I am.
> 
> Can you guess why I can't tell you that?
Click to expand...

So typical "It's all about ME!" narcissism. Get help.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
Click to expand...



There is nothing about religion in my posts.

You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in unscientific principles.... gods, Spaghetti Monsters, or the like... and became aware that supporting such crap requires only lazy lies and fabrications like "FAITH"?
> Would you continue to believe it?
> Of course you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be the usual dumb response that is one more 'I hate you.'
> 
> I can't tell you how deeply hurt I am.
> 
> Can you guess why I can't tell you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So typical "It's all about ME!" narcissism. Get help.
Click to expand...



How can I help being so when they only competition here is the lowest level....you.


----------



## james bond

Mac1958 said:


> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here? Precisely?



Darwin didn't create Theory of Evolution.  He just explained it (which he became _famous_ for) and now we are finding out that he was WRONG.  He was practically wrong about everything and was a _racist_ to boot. His ideas led to social Darwinism, eugenics (Darwin supported his cousin Frances Galton), Hitler, and the Holocaust. His ideas led to black genocide through abortions and Planned Parenthood, i.e. liberal causes.


----------



## fncceo

Moonglow said:


> Science is like religion, the origins of the universe and mankind are all theories...



Theories are the best ideas that fit the available data.  Unlike religion however, when the data changes, the theories must change as well.


----------



## PoliticalChic

I'll bet that the lie exposed in this post is one every government school grad is familiar with.


5. Many have learned this phrase: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

“The *theory of recapitulation*, also called the *biogenetic law* or *embryological parallelism*—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel's phrase "*ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny*"—is a historical hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny).” Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia




And the phrase is based on a diagram that I’ll bet you saw in school, and in textbooks:





Phylotypic stage - Wikipedia



What If I can show that the entire view is bogus….._and those using it know it?_

Check out the title of the thread.


----------



## Moonglow

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is like religion, the origins of the universe and mankind are all theories...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are the best ideas that fit the available data.  Unlike religion however, when the data changes, the theories must change as well.
Click to expand...

Yet, all they do is attempt to find an answer to the past.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.
> 
> 
> No new species in your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _" While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation. "_
Click to expand...



Still no new species.

All human beings can interbreed.


----------



## fncceo

Moonglow said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is like religion, the origins of the universe and mankind are all theories...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are the best ideas that fit the available data.  Unlike religion however, when the data changes, the theories must change as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, all they do is attempt to find an answer to the past.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure we will know precisely how life on Earth started.  I could be molecular biology or it could be the hand of G-d.  But, we shouldn't stop theorizing based on the best available evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

james bond said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here? Precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't create Theory of Evolution.  He just explained it (which he became _famous_ for) and now we are finding out that he was WRONG.  He was practically wrong about everything and was a _racist_ to boot. His ideas led to social Darwinism, eugenics (Darwin supported his cousin Frances Galton), Hitler, and the Holocaust. His ideas led to black genocide through abortions and Planned Parenthood, i.e. liberal causes.
Click to expand...




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


----------



## Mac1958

james bond said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here? Precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't create Theory of Evolution.  He just explained it (which he became _famous_ for) and now we are finding out that he was WRONG.  He was practically wrong about everything and was a _racist_ to boot. His ideas led to social Darwinism, eugenics (Darwin supported his cousin Frances Galton), Hitler, and the Holocaust. His ideas led to black genocide through abortions and Planned Parenthood, i.e. liberal causes.
Click to expand...

So how did we get here?  Political Chic won't tell me.  I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.
> 
> 
> No new species in your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _" While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation. "_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still no new species.
> 
> All human beings can interbreed.
Click to expand...


If you took the time to actually read what I wrote, you'd realize I'm agreeing with you.  But, since you won't, take solace in that fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is like religion, the origins of the universe and mankind are all theories...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are the best ideas that fit the available data.  Unlike religion however, when the data changes, the theories must change as well.
Click to expand...




What do you say when the "available data" is shown to be mostly lies?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here? Precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't create Theory of Evolution.  He just explained it (which he became _famous_ for) and now we are finding out that he was WRONG.  He was practically wrong about everything and was a _racist_ to boot. His ideas led to social Darwinism, eugenics (Darwin supported his cousin Frances Galton), Hitler, and the Holocaust. His ideas led to black genocide through abortions and Planned Parenthood, i.e. liberal causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how did we get here?  Political Chic won't tell me.  I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
Click to expand...



This is a problem when the uneducated, you, sneak in.

I'll bet you have no idea who Miller and Urey are, and why their work and your attempt to change the subject, have no place in this thread.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
Click to expand...

Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> 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*



The fact that Engels was a fan of Darwin isn't a condemnation of Darwin any more than the fact that Hitler's love of Dogs prevents me from loving my puppy.

If you want to see a modern example of a scientific principle for personal and political gain ... look no further than Al Gore.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.
Click to expand...



You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.


----------



## Taz

fncceo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...

Humans changing over time, that's what evolution is. We're getting taller because taller people are generally more successful.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...



Well I just blew your theory out of the water.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Engels was a fan of Darwin isn't a condemnation of Darwin any more than the fact that Hitler's love of Dogs prevents me from loving my puppy.
> 
> If you want to see a modern example of a scientific principle for personal and political gain ... look no further than Al Gore.
> 
> View attachment 354805
Click to expand...




The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.

. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ thesis.

Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.


----------



## fncceo

Taz said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans changing over time, that's what evolution is. We're getting taller because taller people are generally more successful.
Click to expand...


If you're not careful, someone might actually believe you're serious.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Taz said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans changing over time, that's what evolution is. We're getting taller because taller people are generally more successful.
Click to expand...



Try fatter, not taller and it has to do with super chickens


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.
Click to expand...

Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.


----------



## Taz

fncceo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans changing over time, that's what evolution is. We're getting taller because taller people are generally more successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not careful, someone might actually believe you're serious.
Click to expand...

We're genetically transformed to be taller as a whole. Geez you're slow.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.



The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of  Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.

V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.

Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes.  That doesn't make the science any less valid.


----------



## fncceo

Taz said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans changing over time, that's what evolution is. We're getting taller because taller people are generally more successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not careful, someone might actually believe you're serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're genetically transformed to be taller as a whole. Geez you're slow.
Click to expand...


If we reverted to a Medieval Diet, we would see that gain in stature disappear in a single generation.  It's not a genetic mutation.

Want proof?  Raise your children on the diet of a medieval peasant and see how tall they get.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
Click to expand...

When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.


----------



## Taz

fncceo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans changing over time, that's what evolution is. We're getting taller because taller people are generally more successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not careful, someone might actually believe you're serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're genetically transformed to be taller as a whole. Geez you're slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we reverted to a Medieval Diet, we would see that gain in stature disappear in a single generation.  It's not a genetic mutation.
> 
> Want proof?  Raise your children on the diet of a medieval peasant and see how tall they get.
Click to expand...

Since that diet thing's never been done, you can't call that proof. Please try again.


----------



## Mac1958

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.
Click to expand...

She's not meant to be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Engels was a fan of Darwin isn't a condemnation of Darwin any more than the fact that Hitler's love of Dogs prevents me from loving my puppy.
> 
> If you want to see a modern example of a scientific principle for personal and political gain ... look no further than Al Gore.
> 
> View attachment 354805
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.
> 
> . While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ thesis.
> 
> Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory.
> 
> But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.
Click to expand...

1. “variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. You enjoy being publicly humiliated, right.

7. This is where you’re supposed to cut and paste your usual Dean Kenyon and David Berlinski “quotes”. Nothing says hyper-religious like cutting and pasting from fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.
Click to expand...



Gads,  you're a moron.


Please....you clearly are as clueless about science as you are about everything else.

Stop infecting this thread with ignorance.

And try to stand downwind.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Whataboutism never dis"proves" anything. No theory is ever presumed perfect ("proven"). Each evolves into better theory through continued critical analysis. The way to challenge scientific theory is to expose it as falsifiable. That's done all the time and remains simply part of scientific methodology. The theory itself evolves. Only a narcissistic goober would presume otherwise. Propose a better theory if you dare. Gain the equivalent or better scientific consensus. Then you'll have something to crow about.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gads,  you're a moron.
> 
> 
> Please....you clearly are as clueless about science as you are about everything else.
> 
> Stop infecting this thread with ignorance.
> 
> And try to stand downwind.
Click to expand...

So how did we get all the different races from a common ancestor? Or don't you believe that either? So where do all the races come from?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gads,  you're a moron.
> 
> 
> Please....you clearly are as clueless about science as you are about everything else.
> 
> Stop infecting this thread with ignorance.
> 
> And try to stand downwind.
Click to expand...

It’s comical to watch. The entirety of posts devolve to juvenile tantrums as your cut and paste “quotes” are shown to be frauds.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of  Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.
> 
> V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.
> 
> Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes.  That doesn't make the science any less valid.
Click to expand...



I never said that....you did.

I said that the erroneous Darwinian theory provided support for the erroneous Marxism of those two.


It is Marxist 'scientists' who advance Darwinism to this day.

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



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



In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that *he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.*
The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the *Anti-Capitalist Movement,* as part of the European Social Forum." Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

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


----------



## Crepitus

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...

Hell, your feet are still evolving to better keep you upright and the human pinky finger is atrophying.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of  Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.
> 
> V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.
> 
> Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes.  That doesn't make the science any less valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that....you did.
> 
> I said that the erroneous Darwinian theory provided support for the erroneous Marxism of those two.
> 
> 
> It is Marxist 'scientists' who advance Darwinism to this day.
> 
> Two of [Stephen Jay] Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) *co-authored a book on Marxist biology* entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative *evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries.* As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science.
> 
> 
> 
> Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." _Wikipedia_ begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "*Science for the People is a leftwing organization* that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that *he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.*
> The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the *Anti-Capitalist Movement,* as part of the European Social Forum." Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network
> 
> http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/
Click to expand...

Cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog? 

While the web can be an invaluable source to gather data and research historical information it can also be a playground for cut and pasters who have an agenda to promote their irrational fears and superstitions.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> Cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog?


Seriously, wtf! Talk about "fakes in science":





						David Noebel | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network
					






					www.worldviewweekend.com


----------



## PoliticalChic

Of interest is that Darwin himself thought the Haeckel vertebrate embryo diagrams were the greatest evidence for his theory…..not the fossil record, which he admitted did not support him. 

Haeckel’s diagram is fake, and known from early on that it was a fake…..yet Darwinists continue to use it in school and in textbooks.
Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see the fabrication:














						Ernst Haeckel's Phony Embryo Drawings
					

Ernst Haeckel    Ernst Haeckel  (1834-1919) was a German zoologist and physician, who discovered thousands of biological species and help...




					www.acts17.net
				






The OP:
The Most Famous Fakes In Biology

 What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> I'll prove it in this thread.



Of course you will, dear. 

Waiting patiently for you dumping your usual catalog of fake, edited and parsed ''quotes''.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> What if you believed....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?



That can be devastating to ''believers''. Such beliefs as a 6,000 year old planet are undeniably false except to believers.


----------



## Grumblenuts

The OP offers "proof" that evolution "is only supported with lies and fabrications." 
Relying _upon scientists_ arguing with each other over details of little demonstrated consequence, none even hinting of the entire theory being in question, let alone offering credible alternative theories.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Of interest is that Darwin himself thought the Haeckel vertebrate embryo diagrams were the greatest evidence for his theory…..not the fossil record, which he admitted did not support him.
> 
> Haeckel’s diagram is fake, and known from early on that it was a fake…..yet Darwinists continue to use it in school and in textbooks.
> Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see the fabrication:
> 
> 
> View attachment 354813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernst Haeckel's Phony Embryo Drawings
> 
> 
> Ernst Haeckel    Ernst Haeckel  (1834-1919) was a German zoologist and physician, who discovered thousands of biological species and help...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.acts17.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP:
> The Most Famous Fakes In Biology
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.


Why would you believe ID'iot creationists are anything but frauds?









						Haeckel's Drawings | National Center for Science Education
					

Explore Evolution incorrectly asserts that Haeckel s Biogenetic Law claims that the earliest stage of embryos are most similar.




					ncse.ngo
				



Why are Haeckel's embryos focused upon in this section? Most likely because this diagram was found in many high school biology textbooks, and that Michael Richardson's research on vertebrate embryos rekindled an old controversy about whether the early embryos in the diagram are accurate. However, as Richardson and colleagues note, this hardly undermines the strong support for common descent from embryology, despite the claims of Creationists and ID proponents.



> Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. Haeckel s famous drawings are a Creationist cause celebre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms. (4)
> Richardson et al. (1998) "Haeckel, Embryos and Evolution." Science, 280:983


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> The OP offers "proof" that evolution "is only supported with lies and fabrications."
> Relying _upon scientists_ arguing with each other over details of little demonstrated consequence, none even hinting of the entire theory being in question, let alone offering credible alternative theories.




Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Bet you don't have one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

6. Now….that vertebrate embryo diagram that they showed you in school…..

Years before Darwin published _The Origin of Species_, German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer designed it to show that the embryos of some vertebrates (animals with backbones) pass through a stage at which they look very much alike. Start simple, and go on to become more complex. One can see why Darwin latched on to it. Known as “von Baer’s law,” though von Baer himself knew of many exceptions to it. 
See Arthur Henfrey & Thomas H. Huxley (editors), “Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: Natural History,” (London, 1853; reprinted 1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York), 214.



7. This particular version was by German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel to illustrate* this distorted view, and Darwin relied on the diagram for his theory. It is still used as perfect evidence of Darwin’s beliefs*……even though *everyone using it knows it is fake.*

“Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of _Anatomy and Embryology_,[32] demonstrated that *Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage.* In a March 2000 issue of _Natural History_, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[33]

But even Richardson admitted in _Science_ Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[35] Embryo drawing - Wikipedia



"*one of the most famous fakes in biology”….*as is Darwinism.



Now....why would real scientists have to lie if their theory could stand up to inspection?


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'


Eat worms all you want.


> Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'
> 
> 
> 
> Eat worms all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Science has nothing to do with consensus.

It is based on empirical data.

You didn't know that????

No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

This is the 'proof' of Darwin's theory.....

And the phrase is based on a diagram that I’ll bet you saw in school, and in textbooks:








Phylotypic stage - Wikipedia

But it's not. It's fake.....the most famous fake still being used.



8. “The embryos are (left to right) fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human. Von Baer did not regard embryology as evidence for evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory*, von Baer explicitly rejected the claim that the various classes of vertebrates (i.e., fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) were descended from a common ancestor.*

According to historian of science Timothy Lenoir, *von Baer criticized Darwinists for having “already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos.”*
Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 258.



And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?

And why is Darwinism so important that 'scientists' will lie to advance it????


It's not science....it's politics.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> This is the 'proof' of Darwin's theory.....
> 
> And the phrase is based on a diagram that I’ll bet you saw in school, and in textbooks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phylotypic stage - Wikipedia
> 
> But it's not. It's fake.....the most famous fake still being used.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. “The embryos are (left to right) fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human. Von Baer did not regard embryology as evidence for evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory*, von Baer explicitly rejected the claim that the various classes of vertebrates (i.e., fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) were descended from a common ancestor.*
> 
> According to historian of science Timothy Lenoir, *von Baer criticized Darwinists for having “already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos.”*
> Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 258.
> 
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> 
> And why is Darwinism so important that 'scientists' will lie to advance it????
> 
> 
> It's not science....it's politics.


It's comical that you cut and paste from 30 year old newspaper articles in desperate attempts to support ID'iot creation ministries.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...


That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> 6. Now….that vertebrate embryo diagram that they showed you in school…..
> 
> Years before Darwin published _The Origin of Species_, German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer designed it to show that the embryos of some vertebrates (animals with backbones) pass through a stage at which they look very much alike. Start simple, and go on to become more complex. One can see why Darwin latched on to it. Known as “von Baer’s law,” though von Baer himself knew of many exceptions to it.
> See Arthur Henfrey & Thomas H. Huxley (editors), “Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: Natural History,” (London, 1853; reprinted 1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York), 214.
> 
> 
> 
> 7. This particular version was by German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel to illustrate* this distorted view, and Darwin relied on the diagram for his theory. It is still used as perfect evidence of Darwin’s beliefs*……even though *everyone using it knows it is fake.*
> 
> “Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of _Anatomy and Embryology_,[32] demonstrated that *Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage.* In a March 2000 issue of _Natural History_, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[33]
> 
> But even Richardson admitted in _Science_ Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[35] Embryo drawing - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> "*one of the most famous fakes in biology”….*as is Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....why would real scientists have to lie if their theory could stand up to inspection?


Goofy conspiracy theories aren't helpful.

This is where you cut and paste your spam Berlinski and Dean Kenyon ''quotes'


----------



## Taz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
Click to expand...

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Taz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
Click to expand...


That's not evolution, but whatever.  Believe what you will


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
Click to expand...



You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.

All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.
> 
> That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.
> 
> All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
> Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.
Click to expand...

It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.

Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.

Here is a description that may help.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
*What is macroevolution?*
_First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism_

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both _macroevolution_ and _microevolution_ are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, *macroevolution* is used to refer to any evolutionary change _at or above the level of species_. It means _at least_ the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or _cladogenesis_, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (_anagenetic_ speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are _also_ therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

*Microevolution* refers to any evolutionary change _below_ the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.



Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).

You moron.

You dunce.


----------



## Taz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not evolution, but whatever.  Believe what you will
Click to expand...

Why is that not evolution? Please explain.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.
> 
> That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.
> 
> All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
> Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.
Click to expand...

So you agree that evolution exists. Good for you. 

Now go make me some kimchi, just like you make it for Kim.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'
> 
> 
> 
> Eat worms all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science has nothing to do with consensus.
> 
> It is based on empirical data.
> 
> You didn't know that????
> 
> No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Ew, gross! Could you at least close your mouth while chewing those things? 
Oh, and flattering me with non sequiturs will get you nowhere.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'
> 
> 
> 
> Eat worms all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science has nothing to do with consensus.
> 
> It is based on empirical data.
> 
> You didn't know that????
> 
> No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ew, gross! Could you at least close your mouth while chewing those things?
> Oh, and flattering me with non sequiturs will get you nowhere.
Click to expand...



Is it government school we should thank for how clever you dunces are?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'
> 
> 
> 
> Eat worms all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science has nothing to do with consensus.
> 
> It is based on empirical data.
> 
> You didn't know that????
> 
> No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ew, gross! Could you at least close your mouth while chewing those things?
> Oh, and flattering me with non sequiturs will get you nowhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is it government school we should thank for how clever you dunces are?
Click to expand...

It is the home skoolurs we should hold responsible for the the social misfits they churn out.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.
> 
> That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.
> 
> All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
> Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.
> 
> Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.
> 
> Here is a description that may help.
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> *What is macroevolution?*
> _First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism_
> 
> Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both _macroevolution_ and _microevolution_ are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
> 
> In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.
> 
> In evolutionary biology today, *macroevolution* is used to refer to any evolutionary change _at or above the level of species_. It means _at least_ the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or _cladogenesis_, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (_anagenetic_ speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are _also_ therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
> 
> *Microevolution* refers to any evolutionary change _below_ the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).
> 
> You moron.
> 
> You dunce.
Click to expand...


Ad hominem attacks!  It means you lose your argument at the end.

Give us a few examples of macroevolution and explanations per what you copy and pasted and microevolution per what you copy and pasted.  Just so we know you understand what you copy and pasted.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> I'm not sure we will know precisely how life on Earth started. I could be molecular biology or it could be the hand of G-d. But, we shouldn't stop theorizing based on the best available evidence.



Does that make you agnostic?


----------



## james bond

Mac1958 said:


> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?



Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.


----------



## Mac1958

james bond said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
Click to expand...



The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.
> 
> I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.
> 
> Excellent.
Click to expand...

Keep running.  I'm fine with that.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.
> 
> That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.
> 
> All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
> Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.
> 
> Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.
> 
> Here is a description that may help.
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> *What is macroevolution?*
> _First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism_
> 
> Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both _macroevolution_ and _microevolution_ are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
> 
> In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.
> 
> In evolutionary biology today, *macroevolution* is used to refer to any evolutionary change _at or above the level of species_. It means _at least_ the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or _cladogenesis_, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (_anagenetic_ speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are _also_ therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
> 
> *Microevolution* refers to any evolutionary change _below_ the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).
> 
> You moron.
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad hominem attacks!  It means you lose your argument at the end.
> 
> Give us a few examples of macroevolution and explanations per what you copy and pasted and microevolution per what you copy and pasted.  Just so we know you understand what you copy and pasted.
Click to expand...

I gave you examples.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Taz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> Wait, you weren't serious, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not evolution, but whatever.  Believe what you will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that not evolution? Please explain.
Click to expand...


I don't know what that is!  You have to explain it to me


----------



## DustyInfinity

Mac1958 said:


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


Way to go bozo, now you have people swearing apes turned into people just to take jabs at religion.  The OP has nothing to do with religion.  When facts don't fit narratives, we have politics.


----------



## ABikerSailor

fncceo said:


> The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.
> 
> V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.
> 
> Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't make the science any less valid.



Exactly.  Matter of fact, that is the reason the Nobel Peace Prize exists.  After Nobel had invented dynamite, which was safer and more stable than the nitroglycerin that it replaced, he knew it could be used for war, which is why he started the prize.  Mankind has a knack for weaponizing just about anything.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.
> 
> I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep running.  I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...



As you wish.


I believe you are requesting another spanking.
My pleasure.

You wrote this:

"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92
They've Always Been 'Racists'



I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.

When you realized that I caught you, *you posted many lies,* claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:

*belief
noun*

be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \

*Definition of belief
1: *a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular _belief_
*2: *something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion *: *something believed an individual's religious or political _beliefs_
. Definition of BELIEF


....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.


So we find that lying is not a problem for you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

In this thread it has been shown that the Left, neo-Marxists, have no compunction about using lies to advance Darwinism. That in itself proves it's not science....it's politics.
Darwin’s theory is demanded by the neo-Marxists who influence academia.



9. Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s book is blurbed with the same view at Amazon:

“Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition *and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis.”*






And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs*….


----------



## PoliticalChic

These are the sorts of posts from government school victims....er, graduates.


“Evolution is a fact.” 
Science Believers

And this…

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


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

PoliticalChic said:


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


You already had your ass spanked on another evolution thread and yet you spam another one.  Are you a masochist and enjoy pain and embarrassment?


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.
> 
> I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep running.  I'm fine with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish.
> 
> 
> I believe you are requesting another spanking.
> My pleasure.
> 
> You wrote this:
> 
> "Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
> That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
> I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."
> 
> Post #92
> They've Always Been 'Racists'
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
> "a habit of mind; an opinion"
> . Definition of BELIEF
> 
> 
> You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.
> 
> When you realized that I caught you, *you posted many lies,* claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.
> 
> 
> As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:
> 
> *belief
> noun*
> 
> be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \
> 
> *Definition of belief
> 1: *a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular _belief_
> *2: *something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion *: *something believed an individual's religious or political _beliefs_
> . Definition of BELIEF
> 
> 
> ....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.
> 
> 
> So we find that lying is not a problem for you.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read all that.

If pretending that I lied about something makes you feel a little better, and if it provides an excuse to run from my direct questions, great.

By the way, brevity is the soul of wit.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


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



And now we've heard from the most famous fake in education.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.
> 
> I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep running.  I'm fine with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish.
> 
> 
> I believe you are requesting another spanking.
> My pleasure.
> 
> You wrote this:
> 
> "Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
> That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
> I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."
> 
> Post #92
> They've Always Been 'Racists'
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
> "a habit of mind; an opinion"
> . Definition of BELIEF
> 
> 
> You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.
> 
> When you realized that I caught you, *you posted many lies,* claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.
> 
> 
> As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:
> 
> *belief
> noun*
> 
> be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \
> 
> *Definition of belief
> 1: *a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular _belief_
> *2: *something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion *: *something believed an individual's religious or political _beliefs_
> . Definition of BELIEF
> 
> 
> ....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.
> 
> 
> So we find that lying is not a problem for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to read all that.
> 
> If pretending that I lied about something makes you feel a little better, and if it provides an excuse to run from my direct questions, great.
> 
> By the way, brevity is the soul of wit.
Click to expand...




Here's the short version: no one with your history should ever use the word 'dishonest.'


----------



## Mac1958

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.
> 
> I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep running.  I'm fine with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish.
> 
> 
> I believe you are requesting another spanking.
> My pleasure.
> 
> You wrote this:
> 
> "Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.
> That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?
> I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."
> 
> Post #92
> They've Always Been 'Racists'
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....
> "a habit of mind; an opinion"
> . Definition of BELIEF
> 
> 
> You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.
> 
> When you realized that I caught you, *you posted many lies,* claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.
> 
> 
> As a ‘belief’ is a thought….I proved it here:
> 
> *belief
> noun*
> 
> be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \
> 
> *Definition of belief
> 1: *a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or popular _belief_
> *2: *something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion *: *something believed an individual's religious or political _beliefs_
> . Definition of BELIEF
> 
> 
> ....clearly you do subscribe to the idea of 'thought crimes,' as all you Nazis do.
> 
> 
> So we find that lying is not a problem for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to read all that.
> 
> If pretending that I lied about something makes you feel a little better, and if it provides an excuse to run from my direct questions, great.
> 
> By the way, brevity is the soul of wit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the short version: no one with your history should ever use the word 'dishonest.'
Click to expand...

Whatever you'd like.  Just keep running.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> In this thread it has been shown that the Left, neo-Marxists, have no compunction about using lies to advance Darwinism. That in itself proves it's not science....it's politics.
> Darwin’s theory is demanded by the neo-Marxists who influence academia.
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s book is blurbed with the same view at Amazon:
> 
> “Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition *and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis.”*
> 
> View attachment 354939
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs*….


Johnson was a darling of the ID'iot creationist crowd. He was a lawyer, not a biologist but why should that matter to the ID'iot creationist mobs with their rakes and pitchforks?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> These are the sorts of posts from government school victims....er, graduates.
> 
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.”
> Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.”
> The Pretense Called Evolution


The threads you linked to are the very threads where you home skoolurs couldn't offer a coherent thought.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread it has been shown that the Left, neo-Marxists, have no compunction about using lies to advance Darwinism. That in itself proves it's not science....it's politics.
> Darwin’s theory is demanded by the neo-Marxists who influence academia.
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson’s book is blurbed with the same view at Amazon:
> 
> “Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition *and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis.”*
> 
> View attachment 354939
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs*….
> 
> 
> 
> Johnson was a darling of the ID'iot creationist crowd. He was a lawyer, not a biologist but why should that matter to the ID'iot creationist mobs with their rakes and pitchforks?
Click to expand...

Noting wrong with rakes and pitchforks, mind you. Lend her a garden fork if you must.. more her size and better for finding her worms


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it’s the hyper-religious whack jobs who see science and knowledge as a threat.
Click to expand...

So who created the big bang?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Did He smell it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

10. The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory….yet the result of government schooling is that their captives come away believing it is factual, proven, irrefutable.
Why? Because the mission of said institution is to weaponize education against religion. That is the Left’s desire.

Our knowledge of the damage mutations cause doesn’t fit Darwinist’s view that these ‘modifications’ advance evolution, that they result in new species. As of this writing, they never have.


I’ve shown *examples of outright lies designed to advance Darwinism*, yet in 2004, Haeckel’s embryo drawings were used as evidence for Darwinism in numerous textbooks….. in the tenth edition of Starr and Taggart’s _Biology; The Unity and Diversity of Life_; in an early version of Raver’s _Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life_; and in the third edition of Voet and Voet’s _Biochemistry_. 
Noted in:
Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! Atrocious!” _Natural History _(March, 2000), 42–49, 44–46. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, _Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, _Tenth Edition (Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, 2004), 315. Joseph Raver, Biology: _Patterns and Processes of Life _(Dallas, TX: J. M. LeBel Publishers, 2004), 100. Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, _Biochemistry, _Third Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 4.

Must be some mighty strong reasons to use lies to support a failed thesis.




11. And it continues:
“At the Tribeca Film Festival in April and May 2006, evolutionary biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson premiered _Flock of Dodos_, a film that claims Haeckel’s embryos haven’t appeared in biology textbooks since 1914. Yet Olson knows that many recent textbooks _do _contain Haeckel’s faked drawings. Although _Flock of Dodos _pretends to be a documentary, it is actually a pro-Darwin propaganda film.” Jonathan Wells



So many lies to advance Darwinism……why?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> 10. The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory….yet the result of government schooling is that their captives come away believing it is factual, proven, irrefutable.
> Why? Because the mission of said institution is to weaponize education against religion. That is the Left’s desire.
> 
> Our knowledge of the damage mutations cause doesn’t fit Darwinist’s view that these ‘modifications’ advance evolution, that they result in new species. As of this writing, they never have.
> 
> 
> I’ve shown *examples of outright lies designed to advance Darwinism*, yet in 2004, Haeckel’s embryo drawings were used as evidence for Darwinism in numerous textbooks….. in the tenth edition of Starr and Taggart’s _Biology; The Unity and Diversity of Life_; in an early version of Raver’s _Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life_; and in the third edition of Voet and Voet’s _Biochemistry_.
> Noted in:
> Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! Atrocious!” _Natural History _(March, 2000), 42–49, 44–46. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, _Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, _Tenth Edition (Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, 2004), 315. Joseph Raver, Biology: _Patterns and Processes of Life _(Dallas, TX: J. M. LeBel Publishers, 2004), 100. Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, _Biochemistry, _Third Edition (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), 4.
> 
> Must be some mighty strong reasons to use lies to support a failed thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11. And it continues:
> “At the Tribeca Film Festival in April and May 2006, evolutionary biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson premiered _Flock of Dodos_, a film that claims Haeckel’s embryos haven’t appeared in biology textbooks since 1914. Yet Olson knows that many recent textbooks _do _contain Haeckel’s faked drawings. Although _Flock of Dodos _pretends to be a documentary, it is actually a pro-Darwin propaganda film.” Jonathan Wells
> 
> 
> 
> So many lies to advance Darwinism……why?


Your silly ''quotes'' from Jonathan Wells, another dishonest hack at the Disco'tute, tells you what you need to know about ID'iot creationism / religionism.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.

Wells happens to be one of the few Discotute creationist with legitimate credentials, a Ph.D. in biological science, which he completed – according to himself – for the sole purpose of “debunking” evolution. He has not yet succeeded in debunking evolution, of course, but has certainly been caught lying, gish galloping, data mangling, quote-mining, misrepresenting evidence, moving goalposts, and spewing nonsense a respectable number of times. A fantastic example of Wells trying to link Darwinism to Nazism is discussed here.

Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

True to form, Wells also wrote the “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution” for high school students (published by the Discovery Institute). They are answered here and here. Instead of trying to point to any shortcomings with the answers, though, Wells prefers to repeat the questions as if nothing has happened, since that is rhetorically more effective, and the goal is to win debates, not find out what's actually the case.

He also participated in the Kansas evolution hearings and has been featured on a Starbucks’s “The Way I See It”.
His newest book, “The Myth of Junk DNA”, discusses the phenomenon of junk DNA, a phenomenon that heartily offends Intelligent Design proponents insofar as it suggests that not everything in the universe has a purpose. The book is just as well-informed as his previous books, and responses to the first three chapters can be found here, here, and here.

*Diagnosis: Appallingly inane crackpot, infuriatingly dense, and reprehensibly dishonest, Wells’s lack of insight and inability to even pretend to begin to understand anything before he starts criticizing it based on personal dislike, is of almost epic proportions. Yet he continues to be shockingly influential.*


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> 10. The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory….



1. The fossil record supports Darwinian theory.... except in the alternate reality of home skoolurs.

2. It comes as a shock to the Answers in Genesis Cultists that there are places called ''colleges and universities'' where learning occurs.





__





						Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf
					





					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




Darwin's original hypothesis has undergone extensive modification and expansion, but the central concepts stand firm. Studies in genetics and molecular biology—fields unknown in Darwin's time—have explained the occurrence of the hereditary variations that are essential to natural selection. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision.

Genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively—such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change—the very opposite of chance.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change—the very opposite of chance.


A beautiful truism.. that drives the ID'iots insane. "Based on random or chance elements" can be shortened to "probability." Probability (not ID) drives evolutionary ("adaptive") change. 

It just is. It doesn't bleed. It doesn't sweat. It doesn't care about me.. or _you_.. It doesn't care!


----------



## PoliticalChic

12. The most famous fake in science is the Haeckel embryo diagram…..yet you saw it in school as ‘fact’…..just as Darwin is sold as ‘fact.’



*Everyone knew from the start that Haeckel was lying in trying to pass of faked pictures of vertebrate embryos*….yet textbooks are still putting that diagram in.



Embryologist Adam Sedgwick pointed out in 1894 that the doctrine of early similarity and later difference is “not in accordance with the facts of development.” Comparing a dogfish with a chicken, Sedgwick wrote: *“There is no stage of development in which the unaided eye would fail to distinguish between them with ease.”*

It is “not necessary to emphasize further these embryonic differences,” Sedgwick continued, because “every embryologist knows that they exist and could bring forward innumerable instances of them. I need only say with regard to them that *a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development.”*

Adam Sedgwick, “On the Law of Development Commonly Known as von Baer’s Law; and on the Significance of Ancestral Rudiments in Embryonic Development,” _Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science _36 (1894), 35–52.



And in 1987 embryologist Richard P. Elinson emphasized that *the early developmental stages of frogs, chicks, and mice “are radically different.*” William W. Ballard, “Problems of gastrulation: real and verbal,” BioScience 26 (1976): 36–39. Richard P. Elinson, “Change in Developmental Patterns: Embryos of Amphibians with Large Eggs,” 1–21 in R. A. Raff & E. C. Raff (editors), Development as an Evolutionary Process, Vol. 8 (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1987).



What can be said in defense of the Darwinist liars?
“In any other scientific field, people making excuses for fraud like this would probably be disgraced or drummed out of the profession.” Jonathan Wells


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> 12. The most famous fake in science is the Haeckel embryo diagram…..yet you saw it in school as ‘fact’…..just as Darwin is sold as ‘fact.’


Bullshit.
"Darwin relied far more on von Baer's work. Haeckel's work was published in 1866 and 1874, years after Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (1859)."


> *Everyone knew from the start that Haeckel was lying* _{...snip...}_
> Adam Sedgwick pointed out in 1894


Let's see: 1894 - 1866 =
Whoa, 28 years!?..

Who's the little, fat liar?


----------



## Hollie

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
					

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?




					www.livescience.com
				




*Natural selection*
To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:

Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.

Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.




1. What can be said in defense of fundamentalist cranks? Well, not much. 

2. The fundamentalist ministries will always draw a certain angry, self-hating element


----------



## 22lcidw

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...

Back around the time of Christ people may have been about a foot shorter then now. We in America with so many groups which have different sizes are still taller then most people in the world today. Our diets which are criticized is also a regular thing for most people everyday. Perhaps to much at times.


----------



## james bond

Mac1958 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
Click to expand...


That's prolly because you hang around evolutionists, atheists, liberals, and the like.  When you hear _real science_, it just jars you.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Natural selection*
> To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."
> 
> But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.
> 
> Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:
> 
> Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.
> 
> Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What can be said in defense of fundamentalist cranks? Well, not much.
> 
> 2. The fundamentalist ministries will always draw a certain angry, self-hating element



Your article's first sentence is wrong.  Darwin did not create ToE.  All he did was explain how it worked.

And natural selections is not Darwin's version.  Sir Alfred Russel Wallace had natural selection first.  His version didn't have survival of the fittest.  It's really more about adapting for survival.  Survival of the _fittest_ was more about having a superior race. Darwin wanted racism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Natural selection*
> To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."
> 
> But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.
> 
> Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:
> 
> Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.
> 
> Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What can be said in defense of fundamentalist cranks? Well, not much.
> 
> 2. The fundamentalist ministries will always draw a certain angry, self-hating element
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your article's first sentence is wrong.  Darwin did not create ToE.  All he did was explain how it worked.
> 
> And natural selections is not Darwin's version.  Sir Alfred Russel Wallace had natural selection first.  His version didn't have survival of the fittest.  It's really more about adapting for survival.  Survival of the _fittest_ was more about having a superior race. Darwin wanted racism.
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.


----------



## PoliticalChic

james bond said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's prolly because you hang around evolutionists, atheists, liberals, and the like.  When you hear _real science_, it just jars you.
Click to expand...



And he has no problem lying.....


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's prolly because you hang around evolutionists, atheists, liberals, and the like.  When you hear _real science_, it just jars you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he has no problem lying.....
Click to expand...

A rather remarkable statement in view of your phony, edited and parsed “quotes”. More remarkable is that you intentionally perpetuate your fraud by repeated cutting and pasting of the same fraudulent “quotes” multiple times in multiple threads.

You’re admitting to be a serial fraud.

Praise jeebus.


----------



## Mac1958

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.
> 
> Is it a secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your _leading_ question has nothing to do with the topic.  We are discussing _fakes_ such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't expecting an honest answer.  I never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's prolly because you hang around evolutionists, atheists, liberals, and the like.  When you hear _real science_, it just jars you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he has no problem lying.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A rather remarkable statement in view of your phony, edited and parsed “quotes”. More remarkable is that you intentionally perpetuate your fraud by repeated cutting and pasting of the same fraudulent “quotes” multiple times in multiple threads.
> 
> You’re admitting to be a serial fraud.
> 
> Praise jeebus.
Click to expand...

Her schtick is to obediently follow the template provided by her talk radio heroes:  Focus on, highlight and expand on all facts that support their agenda, while purposely avoiding, ignoring and distorting all those that do not.  Utilize comical hyperbole and ridiculous extrapolations as needed, and cherry pick religion to use parts of it as a weapon, much like your standard-issue Jihadi.

Then she layers on this weird online hyper-ego in some transparent attempt to buttress her self esteem, insult anyone who dares to challenge her, and avoid providing direct answers to direct questions.

Hey, that's who she is.  A fascinating study, to be sure.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


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


The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist


----------



## PoliticalChic

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
Click to expand...




Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
Click to expand...

The not too bright bulb dims even more

Quote from you

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

Quote from me


The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist

Seriously see a doctor and get medicated


----------



## PoliticalChic

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The not too bright bulb dims even more
> 
> Quote from you
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Quote from me
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Seriously see a doctor and get medicated
Click to expand...



No, moron.....that's not a quote from me.

This is the second time I've had to warn you to learn to read.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The not too bright bulb dims even more
> 
> Quote from you
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Quote from me
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Seriously see a doctor and get medicated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, moron.....that's not a quote from me.
> 
> This is the second time I've had to warn you to learn to read.
Click to expand...

Yes little dim bulb it is a quote from the post you made, so it is a quote from your post and the relationship between ideas ic clear, at least to rational persons

Did you study to be delusional or is it natural?

Yawning again


----------



## PoliticalChic

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The not too bright bulb dims even more
> 
> Quote from you
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Quote from me
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Seriously see a doctor and get medicated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, moron.....that's not a quote from me.
> 
> This is the second time I've had to warn you to learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes little dim bulb it is a quote from the post you made, so it is a quote from your post and the relationship between ideas ic clear, at least to rational persons
> 
> Did you study to be delusional or is it natural?
> 
> Yawning again
Click to expand...



You said it was my quote.

Is it?

Have someone who has a better ability to read, explain it to you.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The not too bright bulb dims even more
> 
> Quote from you
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Quote from me
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Seriously see a doctor and get medicated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, moron.....that's not a quote from me.
> 
> This is the second time I've had to warn you to learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes little dim bulb it is a quote from the post you made, so it is a quote from your post and the relationship between ideas ic clear, at least to rational persons
> 
> Did you study to be delusional or is it natural?
> 
> Yawning again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said it was my quote.
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Have someone who has a better ability to read, explain it to you.
Click to expand...

And you said that my quote of

The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist

Had nothing to do with your post that said

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

Are you a natural blonde?


----------



## harmonica

so you believe a fully formed human ''just appeared''???!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The not too bright bulb dims even more
> 
> Quote from you
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Quote from me
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Seriously see a doctor and get medicated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, moron.....that's not a quote from me.
> 
> This is the second time I've had to warn you to learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes little dim bulb it is a quote from the post you made, so it is a quote from your post and the relationship between ideas ic clear, at least to rational persons
> 
> Did you study to be delusional or is it natural?
> 
> Yawning again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said it was my quote.
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Have someone who has a better ability to read, explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you said that my quote of
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Had nothing to do with your post that said
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Are you a natural blonde?
Click to expand...



That's not my quote, you moron.
Click the link.

Third strike....you're out.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser: what does your post have to do with the post you've linked to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The not too bright bulb dims even more
> 
> Quote from you
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Quote from me
> 
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Seriously see a doctor and get medicated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, moron.....that's not a quote from me.
> 
> This is the second time I've had to warn you to learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes little dim bulb it is a quote from the post you made, so it is a quote from your post and the relationship between ideas ic clear, at least to rational persons
> 
> Did you study to be delusional or is it natural?
> 
> Yawning again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said it was my quote.
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Have someone who has a better ability to read, explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you said that my quote of
> 
> The moment a theory becomes a fact the theory no longer exist
> 
> Had nothing to do with your post that said
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> Are you a natural blonde?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my quote, you moron.
> Click the link.
> 
> Third strike....you're out.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a quote from your post and my quote had everything to do with your post.

If you really think that you are a great pitcher and that you are striking people out here again, see a doctor


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.



Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.


----------



## PoliticalChic

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives in infinite pain and suffering.
Click to expand...




....and the riots and assaults and arson we see on the streets of our nation today.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
Click to expand...

Where's the conspiracy theory?

Read your post.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives in infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the riots and assaults and arson we see on the streets of our nation today.
Click to expand...

The hyper-religious share common ailments.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
Click to expand...


Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.

How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> so you believe a fully formed human ''just appeared''???!!



Science is about the _best_ theory.

Not conspiracy theories, you idiot.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
Click to expand...

You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
Click to expand...


Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.  

OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
Click to expand...

Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
Click to expand...


It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
Click to expand...

Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
Click to expand...


Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?
Click to expand...

It's observable.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's observable.
Click to expand...


Like what?

If the present is the key to the past, then we should see today's monkeys being bipedal.  Instead, they're still quadripedal.  We do not see life form from outer space, the sea, geysers, primordial soup, or whatever kind of dirt you want.  We do not see life pop up in-between water and air layers.  We don't see a single big or little bang from all the singularities we have out there.  I can't even count the number of times you have lied already like your last post.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> If the present is the key to the past, then we should see today's monkeys being bipedal.  Instead, they're still quadripedal.  We do not see life form from outer space, the sea, geysers, primordial soup, or whatever kind of dirt you want.  We do not see life pop up in-between water and air layers.  We don't see a single big or little bang from all the singularities we have out there.  I can't even count the number of times you have lied already like your last post.
Click to expand...

Just more of your conspiracy theory tirades.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> If the present is the key to the past, then we should see today's monkeys being bipedal.  Instead, they're still quadripedal.  We do not see life form from outer space, the sea, geysers, primordial soup, or whatever kind of dirt you want.  We do not see life pop up in-between water and air layers.  We don't see a single big or little bang from all the singularities we have out there.  I can't even count the number of times you have lied already like your last post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more of your conspiracy theory tirades.
Click to expand...


The worst atheist's and evolutionists' claims are probably having a mountain of evidence and big bang theory.  You had a chance and more to provide the evidence, but it's the creationists who have the mountain of evidence.  Moreover, I debunked your big bang theory and more.  There is no observable evidence of singularity.  There is no observable evidence that big bang happened and cosmic inflation happened milliseconds afterwards.  What I have is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which has been presented to your face and your face rubbed in it several times already.  Instead, real science explains how the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> If the present is the key to the past, then we should see today's monkeys being bipedal.  Instead, they're still quadripedal.  We do not see life form from outer space, the sea, geysers, primordial soup, or whatever kind of dirt you want.  We do not see life pop up in-between water and air layers.  We don't see a single big or little bang from all the singularities we have out there.  I can't even count the number of times you have lied already like your last post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more of your conspiracy theory tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worst atheist's and evolutionists' claims are probably having a mountain of evidence and big bang theory.  You had a chance and more to provide the evidence, but it's the creationists who have the mountain of evidence.  Moreover, I debunked your big bang theory and more.  There is no observable evidence of singularity.  There is no observable evidence that big bang happened and cosmic inflation happened milliseconds afterwards.  What I have is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which has been presented to your face and your face rubbed in it several times already.  Instead, real science explains how the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.
Click to expand...

The bibles are not science texts.

You have debunked nothing. 

Consider posting in the Conspiracy Theory forums. You can make new friends.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The bibles are not science texts.



Finally, you are partially right about the Bible.  The Bible are not science texts, but we find science backs up what's in the Bible.  Nothing backs up what Satan claims as the Antibible of Evolution.

As for the evidence, the creationists have the mountain of evidence while the evolutionists have nothing but false claims.  Your rocks and fossils are eroding away while we still have the majority of fossils as marine fossils.  We have the light buildup of seafloor sediments and we can see how rocks form rapidly due to chemical reaction.  In fact, we can show how rocks bend while you can't using evolution.  I showed you that by posting the idiotic Bill Nye claim.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are pretty typical for religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the conspiracy?  Please point it out and explain.  The conspiracy theories like humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis, big bang, cosmic inflation, Earth and the universe billions of years old and the universe older than Earth, aliens, no global flood, eggs before chickens, and more are the real conspiracy theories for the atheists and their scientists.  It just leads to fake science, alienation from God, and living in a hot, fiery place for the rest of your spiritual lives.  Learn to accept living in a hot and miserable place of infinite pain and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the conspiracy theory?
> 
> Read your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  We have the mountain of evidence while you have squat.
> 
> How can you believe in conspiracies when there is peer review?  Oh yeah, you got rid of the opposition so they can't participate in peer reviews anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on a conspiracy theory crusade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention _crusade _which had to do with war for 200 years starting around 1095, and that is what the creationists must be ready for during end of the world times.
> 
> OTOH, your atheist scientists believe in some kind of destruction from something in the sky such as a large asteroid that causes great flooding and power unleashed.  I suppose it includes a fire of destruction.  And maybe a global warming.  More contradictions of what God prophecized by Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods never "prophecized'' anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all there in black and white thousands of years before Satan started the Antibible with uniformitarianism and theory of evolution.    If the creation scientists were able to participate in peer reviews, then things would be much different.  It's not even who has the best theory anymore, but what the consensus is.  That isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Your screeching about satans and antibibles is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  C'mon it's Saturday night.  Stop drinking your Kim Crawford wine and have something real.  How can uniformitarianism and ToE be real if none of it is observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> If the present is the key to the past, then we should see today's monkeys being bipedal.  Instead, they're still quadripedal.  We do not see life form from outer space, the sea, geysers, primordial soup, or whatever kind of dirt you want.  We do not see life pop up in-between water and air layers.  We don't see a single big or little bang from all the singularities we have out there.  I can't even count the number of times you have lied already like your last post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more of your conspiracy theory tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worst atheist's and evolutionists' claims are probably having a mountain of evidence and big bang theory.  You had a chance and more to provide the evidence, but it's the creationists who have the mountain of evidence.  Moreover, I debunked your big bang theory and more.  There is no observable evidence of singularity.  There is no observable evidence that big bang happened and cosmic inflation happened milliseconds afterwards.  What I have is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which has been presented to your face and your face rubbed in it several times already.  Instead, real science explains how the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.
Click to expand...

The big bang is no longer a credible theory


----------



## ChemEngineer

Taz said:


> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.



Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.

==========================

You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.

I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.

My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate

*So are public libraries.*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bibles are not science texts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you are partially right about the Bible.  The Bible are not science texts, but we find science backs up what's in the Bible.  Nothing backs up what Satan claims as the Antibible of Evolution.
> 
> As for the evidence, the creationists have the mountain of evidence while the evolutionists have nothing but false claims.  Your rocks and fossils are eroding away while we still have the majority of fossils as marine fossils.  We have the light buildup of seafloor sediments and we can see how rocks form rapidly due to chemical reaction.  In fact, we can show how rocks bend while you can't using evolution.  I showed you that by posting the idiotic Bill Nye claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
Click to expand...

Why refer to a Disco'tute charlatan? 






						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




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

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

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

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

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


----------



## ChemEngineer

Hollie said:


> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.



Just because you turn a blind eye to, and refute anything contrary to your atheist dogma does not mean we have not supported our claims.    

Just for starters:

*
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.
Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

*[Note:  I have searched for the alternatives to the Big Bang and found them laughable and completely unsupported by facts and observations.  Five of them include that we are a steady state universe, i.e. it's always been here (preposterous); bouncing cosmology, i.e. big bang, contraction, another big bang, which is of course just a modified big bang; electric universe theory (totally cockamamey); black hole theory, i.e. we were formed from the black hole of another universe (where do they come up with these crazy fantasies!); and a simulation, i.e. we're not real, it's all a computer game.]

Genesis 1:1 - 1:31 *Order of Genesis creation events


creation of the physical universe

transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent

formation of a stable water cycle

establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)

production of plants on the continent(s)

transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent

(sun, moon, and stars become visible for the first time)

production of small sea animals

creation of sea mammals

creation of birds

making of land mammals

creation of mankind


The record given above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. …

The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he were given the events are 1 chance in 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or 1 chance in roughly 40 million.
Clearly Moses was inspired by God. (The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross, page 168)

*Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.

*Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.

*Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits the man-made invention of science has helped us to discover, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is _still_ full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated by secular science.

*Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. . I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis and the Anthropic Principle are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks. The more questions that are answered by *science,* the more new questions arise. This endless search for everything perfectly mirrors our abject ignorance of the nature of our Creator, and stands in stark contrast with what should naturalistically follow if nothing had indeed made everything. Nothing is so simple. God is far beyond complex. So it is with the whole heaven.

There is much, much more besides this showing the concordance of science to the Holy Bible, at long last.  It took centuries for science to catch up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.


 Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
Click to expand...



"we"???

Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???

"While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.

The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
Coulter*


----------



## Taz

ChemEngineer said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
Click to expand...

"microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.

I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.

You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
Click to expand...

Ann Coulter is even crazier than you are.


----------



## Taz

ChemEngineer said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you turn a blind eye to, and refute anything contrary to your atheist dogma does not mean we have not supported our claims.
> 
> Just for starters:
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.
> 
> *[Note:  I have searched for the alternatives to the Big Bang and found them laughable and completely unsupported by facts and observations.  Five of them include that we are a steady state universe, i.e. it's always been here (preposterous); bouncing cosmology, i.e. big bang, contraction, another big bang, which is of course just a modified big bang; electric universe theory (totally cockamamey); black hole theory, i.e. we were formed from the black hole of another universe (where do they come up with these crazy fantasies!); and a simulation, i.e. we're not real, it's all a computer game.]
> 
> Genesis 1:1 - 1:31 *Order of Genesis creation events
> 
> 
> creation of the physical universe
> 
> transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent
> 
> formation of a stable water cycle
> 
> establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)
> 
> production of plants on the continent(s)
> 
> transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent
> 
> (sun, moon, and stars become visible for the first time)
> 
> production of small sea animals
> 
> creation of sea mammals
> 
> creation of birds
> 
> making of land mammals
> 
> creation of mankind
> 
> 
> The record given above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. …
> 
> The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he were given the events are 1 chance in 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or 1 chance in roughly 40 million.
> Clearly Moses was inspired by God. (The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross, page 168)
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits the man-made invention of science has helped us to discover, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is _still_ full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated by secular science.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. . I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis and the Anthropic Principle are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks. The more questions that are answered by *science,* the more new questions arise. This endless search for everything perfectly mirrors our abject ignorance of the nature of our Creator, and stands in stark contrast with what should naturalistically follow if nothing had indeed made everything. Nothing is so simple. God is far beyond complex. So it is with the whole heaven.
> 
> There is much, much more besides this showing the concordance of science to the Holy Bible, at long last.  It took centuries for science to catch up.
Click to expand...

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Or are you copying this from some other doofus?


----------



## esalla

Taz said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.

No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other


----------



## Taz

esalla said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
Click to expand...

Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ann Coulter is even crazier than you are.
Click to expand...




Which of her dozen best sellers are you basing that on?

Which ones have you read....or are you simply re-establishing your reputation as a know-nothing windbag?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
Click to expand...

Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
Click to expand...




So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???

Seems pretty common among your sort.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ann Coulter is even crazier than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of her dozen best sellers are you basing that on?
> 
> Which ones have you read....or are you simply re-establishing your reputation as a know-nothing windbag?
Click to expand...

Even your hero thinks so.

Trump fires back at 'Wacky Nut Job' Ann Coulter


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???
> 
> Seems pretty common among your sort.
Click to expand...

Oh look, another sissy dodge. What's wrong? Still looking for a blog to plagiarize so that you can copy paste it as your answer?

State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???
> 
> Seems pretty common among your sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another sissy dodge. What's wrong? Still looking for a blog to plagiarize so that you can copy paste it as your answer?
> 
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
Click to expand...



It's this simple: mocking you is fun.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

I wonder why PoliticalChic can't state an alternative hypothesis? All this effort...all these claims of her wonderful education (haha)...yet she can't meet this simple request?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???
> 
> Seems pretty common among your sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another sissy dodge. What's wrong? Still looking for a blog to plagiarize so that you can copy paste it as your answer?
> 
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's this simple: mocking you is fun.
Click to expand...

Yes crybaby, cry it out. I am patient. When you are done, you can tackle the simple question.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???
> 
> Seems pretty common among your sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another sissy dodge. What's wrong? Still looking for a blog to plagiarize so that you can copy paste it as your answer?
> 
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's this simple: mocking you is fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes crybaby, cry it out. I am patient. When you are done, you can tackle the simple question.
Click to expand...



What question would that be?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???
> 
> Seems pretty common among your sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another sissy dodge. What's wrong? Still looking for a blog to plagiarize so that you can copy paste it as your answer?
> 
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's this simple: mocking you is fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes crybaby, cry it out. I am patient. When you are done, you can tackle the simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What question would that be?
Click to expand...

Fourth time you have been asked. Please pay attention this time:

What is the hypothesis to explain the observations that you think is correct?

One or two sentences should do it. Be very clear. Use your big girl words.


----------



## esalla

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
Click to expand...

Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.

God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging, sissy.  Name the one you feel is the correct one.  So we can all laugh at it and at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "we"???
> 
> Some folks in the asylum elected you to speak for them???
> 
> "While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
> 
> The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life.* A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining...but another sissy little dodge.
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were lying when you implied leadership of some huge group of followers???
> 
> Seems pretty common among your sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another sissy dodge. What's wrong? Still looking for a blog to plagiarize so that you can copy paste it as your answer?
> 
> State the best hypothesis, in your view, that explains what we observe. Or just keep whining. Your choice, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's this simple: mocking you is fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes crybaby, cry it out. I am patient. When you are done, you can tackle the simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What question would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fourth time you have been asked. Please pay attention this time:
> 
> What is the hypothesis to explain the observations that you think is correct?
> 
> One or two sentences should do it. Be very clear. Use your big girl words.
Click to expand...



I explained the truth in the very first post, the one that hurt you so, that you have been whining ever since.



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

Was that your quote?

No wonder you are so embarrassed.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


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


The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


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




Me?

Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you turn a blind eye to, and refute anything contrary to your atheist dogma does not mean we have not supported our claims.
> 
> Just for starters:
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.
> 
> *[Note:  I have searched for the alternatives to the Big Bang and found them laughable and completely unsupported by facts and observations.  Five of them include that we are a steady state universe, i.e. it's always been here (preposterous); bouncing cosmology, i.e. big bang, contraction, another big bang, which is of course just a modified big bang; electric universe theory (totally cockamamey); black hole theory, i.e. we were formed from the black hole of another universe (where do they come up with these crazy fantasies!); and a simulation, i.e. we're not real, it's all a computer game.]
> 
> Genesis 1:1 - 1:31 *Order of Genesis creation events
> 
> 
> creation of the physical universe
> 
> transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent
> 
> formation of a stable water cycle
> 
> establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)
> 
> production of plants on the continent(s)
> 
> transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent
> 
> (sun, moon, and stars become visible for the first time)
> 
> production of small sea animals
> 
> creation of sea mammals
> 
> creation of birds
> 
> making of land mammals
> 
> creation of mankind
> 
> 
> The record given above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. …
> 
> The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he were given the events are 1 chance in 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or 1 chance in roughly 40 million.
> Clearly Moses was inspired by God. (The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross, page 168)
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits the man-made invention of science has helped us to discover, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is _still_ full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated by secular science.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. . I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis and the Anthropic Principle are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks. The more questions that are answered by *science,* the more new questions arise. This endless search for everything perfectly mirrors our abject ignorance of the nature of our Creator, and stands in stark contrast with what should naturalistically follow if nothing had indeed made everything. Nothing is so simple. God is far beyond complex. So it is with the whole heaven.
> 
> There is much, much more besides this showing the concordance of science to the Holy Bible, at long last.  It took centuries for science to catch up.
Click to expand...



*A History of Religious Hoaxes*
By Benjamin Radford October 01, 2012

















Full-length negative photograph of the Shroud of Turin.
(Image: © Public domain)

The trailer for the film "Innocence of Muslims" recently led to riots over its depiction of the prophet Muhammad as a womanizer, child molester and criminal. Several Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed in protests that have been linked to the film.
Despite the outrage it's not clear that the film actually exists; certainly a trailer for it does, but a trailer isn't a film. Investigation into the anti-Muslim "film" is ongoing, but as yet there seems to be no evidence that the film exists other than as a deadly hoax. People create hoaxes for many reasons, but when fraud mixes with religious fervor the results can range from the comical to the deadly.

1. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion


Perhaps the most infamous and malicious religious hoax in history, "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is a book supposedly revealing a secret Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. It first appeared in Russia in 1905, and though the book has been completely discredited as a forgery, it is still in print and remains widely circulated.Many people have endorsed this religious hoax, including actor Mel Gibson, Adolf Hitler, and automaker Henry Ford, who in 1920 paid to have a half-million copies of the book published. [Top 10 Conspiracy Theories]

2. The Shroud of Turin and Other Holy Relics

Though many believe that Italy's Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus, there's compelling evidence the shroud is in fact a hoax, including a 1389 letter from French Bishop Pierre d'Arcisto Pope Clement stating that a painter confessed to creating it. Indeed, the Bishop's evidence was so convincing that even Pope Clement acknowledged it as a forgery — one of countless faked religious relics circulating at the time. Carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin revealed it does not date back to the time of Christ but instead 14 centuries later — exactly when the forger confessed to making it. Even more damning for its authenticity, there is no record of its existence before then; if it really is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, it seems suspicious that no one knew anything about it for 1,300 years. Though many remain convinced of its authenticity, the historical and scientific evidence suggest the Shroud of Turin is probably a religious hoax. As researcher Joe Nickell noted in his book "Relics of the Christ" (The University Press of Kentucky, 2007),the shroud on display in Turin is only one of over 40 such Jesus shrouds — all claimed to be the real one. [Who Was Jesus, the Man?]



3. The Cardiff Giant

When farm workers digging a well in Cardiff, N.Y., uncovered a fossilized man in 1869 they found something remarkable. The Cardiff Giant, as the figure became known, was a somewhat realistic figure with roughly human dimensions — except that it was nearly 10 feet tall. It was clearly something unique — but what exactly it was divided the public. Some believed it was a stone carving, but who would have made it so long ago that it was buried so deep in the ground? Others, including a local reverend, were convinced it was proof of the literal truth of Biblical scripture, specifically Genesis 6:4 ("There were giants in the earth in those days" KJV). Here, finally, was one of those Biblical giants, discovered on a rural New York farm! It was in fact a clever hoax by a man named George Hull who had planted the carved stone where it would later be found by the farm hands, partly to prove the Bible literalists wrong.



4. Indian Guru Sai Baba's Legerdemain

One of the most influential spiritual leaders in India, Satya Sai Baba died last year at the age of 84. For over five decades the charismatic guru enthralled and mystified followers by performing minor miracles, including producing holy ash, watches, statues, necklaces and rings seemingly out of thin air. However, skeptical investigators including Basava Premanand of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations accused Sai Baba of simple magicians' tricks, and pointed out that all the objects were small and easily concealed in his hands and long-sleeved robes. In at least one case Sai Baba was caught on film by British investigator Professor Richard Wiseman secretly pulling small objects from his person while pretending they appeared out of nowhere.


5. The Discovery of Noah's Ark

Those seeking to find archaeological and historical proof of events in the Bible have often looked for — and, some claim, even found — Noah's Ark. Though many claims of finding the ark are honest mistakes, in 1993 a man hoaxed CBS television into running atwo-hour primetime special titled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." It featured a man named George Jammal, who claimed to have found the ark on a mountain in Turkey. As proof of his incredible claim, he proudly displayed a piece of wood from the ark; it was in fact scrap pine marinated in soy sauce, and Jammal was an actor who had never even been to Turkey.


6. The Ossuary of James, Brother of Jesus

In 2002 an antiquities dealer in Israel claimed to have discovered a limestone ossuary (used to hold bones of the dead) with an inscription in Aramaic on one side of the box identifying its (missing) contents as those of "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus." The find made international news because if genuine, it might provide archaeological evidence for Jesus Christ. However many archaeologists were skeptical for several reasons, including that there was no clear provenance (history) for the item and because carved rosette patterns on the other side of the box were rounded from age and decay, while the script on the disputed inscription had sharp edges suggesting it was recently added. A chalk wash also appeared to have been added to the lettering to make it appear older than it actually was. In 2003 the Israeli Antiquities Authority published a report concluding that the inscription was a modern forgery carved on a genuinely old ossuary box. [Faux Real: A Gallery of Forgeries]



7. God Speaks to Peter Popoff Via Short-Wave Radio


One of the most prominent televangelists in the 1980s was Peter Popoff, who, during his services and revivals, would call out names and home addresses of audience members he'd never met. He even knew personal details such as family members' illnesses or their deceased loved ones' names. It seemed that Popoff got his messages from God or angels, and it greatly impressed his audiences and followers.


In 1986, magician James "The Amazing" Randi heard about Popoff's amazing abilities and decided to investigate. Randi noticed an apparently minor detail that most people missed: Popoff was wearing a hearing aid or earpiece. Using a radio scanner, Randi discovered that Popoff was actually getting biographical information about audience members from his wife (who had earlier spoken to the audience) using a short-wave radio. The scandal tarnished Popoff's ministry, but he eventually recovered and remains active today.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> I explained the truth in the very first post


False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.

This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...


----------



## Taz

esalla said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
Click to expand...

But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


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

So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
Click to expand...



"At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."

The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.

I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
No wonder you're so upset.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


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



"So where do you think all the different animals came from?"

Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?

Excellent.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


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

You mean, other than the documented proofs?

When creationer loons try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward an ignorant, superstitious mindset. Creationers tend to be backward; they exult in their ignorance of science; they despise education. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable.

The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. Creationers tend to invent verses in their bibles to proclaim that the Bibles are accurate science texts. The earth is still not flat, as much as you believe it to be.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."
> 
> The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
> I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.
> 
> I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
> No wonder you're so upset.
Click to expand...

Neato! But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis. Nor will you. Ever. Because you are a fraud and an intellectual midget.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


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

No sissy, that is him asking the same question that drives you into a tailspin, but that a normal person would be able to answer.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


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

If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


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

Noah’s Ark is not where all the different animals came from.

Excellent.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."
> 
> The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
> I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.
> 
> I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
> No wonder you're so upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neato! But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis. Nor will you. Ever. Because you are a fraud and an intellectual midget.
Click to expand...




"But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis." 


Funny.....you were never courageous enough in school to demand proof of the theory they told you was the explanation.

Courage is one virtue I have in great supply.

If you can find a quote where I said I would inform you as the explanation for the diversity of life.....please provide it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
Click to expand...



The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No sissy, that is him asking the same question that drives you into a tailspin, but that a normal person would be able to answer.
Click to expand...



Tailspin?

How so?

I provided the stupid quote of yours, demanded you support it......and you can't.

Not that anyone ever imagined you as more than a fool to begin with.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
Click to expand...

So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
Click to expand...



I understand why you'd rather change the subject.

Must be painful for you,. huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
Click to expand...



Did they teach Darwin's theory?

Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?

Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you'd rather change the subject.
> 
> Must be painful for you,. huh?
Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about? Are you in the right thread?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you'd rather change the subject.
> 
> Must be painful for you,. huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf are you talking about? Are you in the right thread?
Click to expand...



This is science, not theology.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."
> 
> The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
> I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.
> 
> I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
> No wonder you're so upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neato! But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis. Nor will you. Ever. Because you are a fraud and an intellectual midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis."
> 
> 
> Funny.....you were never courageous enough in school to demand proof of the theory they told you was the explanation.
> 
> Courage is one virtue I have in great supply.
> 
> If you can find a quote where I said I would inform you as the explanation for the diversity of life.....please provide it.
Click to expand...

Cute whining!  Like i said, you cowardly fool...never will you state it.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
Click to expand...

If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?

Now where do you think all the different animals came from?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you'd rather change the subject.
> 
> Must be painful for you,. huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf are you talking about? Are you in the right thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is science, not theology.
Click to expand...

We got sidetracked. Sorry ma'am.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."
> 
> The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
> I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.
> 
> I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
> No wonder you're so upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neato! But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis. Nor will you. Ever. Because you are a fraud and an intellectual midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis."
> 
> 
> Funny.....you were never courageous enough in school to demand proof of the theory they told you was the explanation.
> 
> Courage is one virtue I have in great supply.
> 
> If you can find a quote where I said I would inform you as the explanation for the diversity of life.....please provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining!  Like i said, you cowardly fool...never will you state it.
Click to expand...



State what?

That Darwin is false?

I've done so numerous times.....you're simply not that bright.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."
> 
> The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
> I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.
> 
> I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
> No wonder you're so upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neato! But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis. Nor will you. Ever. Because you are a fraud and an intellectual midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis."
> 
> 
> Funny.....you were never courageous enough in school to demand proof of the theory they told you was the explanation.
> 
> Courage is one virtue I have in great supply.
> 
> If you can find a quote where I said I would inform you as the explanation for the diversity of life.....please provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute whining!  Like i said, you cowardly fool...never will you state it.
Click to expand...




When will you be providing the 'proof' you claimed about Darwin's theory?

Never?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
Click to expand...



It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.

Why is it taught as a fact?


----------



## esalla

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
Click to expand...

God is a scientific requirement for DNA unless you believe that something just pops into existence from nothing which all aspects of modern science forbid


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you'd rather change the subject.
> 
> Must be painful for you,. huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf are you talking about? Are you in the right thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is science, not theology.
Click to expand...

Actually, angry xtian cranks have little knowledge of science.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you'd rather change the subject.
> 
> Must be painful for you,. huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf are you talking about? Are you in the right thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is science, not theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, angry xtian cranks have little knowledge of science.
Click to expand...

Hollie you still can't name the species that you claim were observed speciating


----------



## ChemEngineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?



1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.

2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.


----------



## esalla

ChemEngineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
Click to expand...

Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
Click to expand...

As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
Click to expand...

Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.
Click to expand...

Darwin never claimed that. You science illiterate types are wasting bandwidth.


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
Click to expand...


Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin never claimed that. You science illiterate types are wasting bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Yea he did Hollie in his letter to Hooker, you will now learn

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.



			Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
Click to expand...

You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted



			Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin never claimed that. You science illiterate types are wasting bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he did Hollie in his letter to Hooker, you will now learn
> 
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
Click to expand...

As I noted, nothing about DNA. You're a shameless fraud.


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
Click to expand...

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin never claimed that. You science illiterate types are wasting bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he did Hollie in his letter to Hooker, you will now learn
> 
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted, nothing about DNA. You're a shameless fraud.
Click to expand...

Exactly stupid Darwin was completely ignorant to the DNA code, in his mind life was pond scum, if Darwin knew what DNA was he would never have claimed that life was goo from a pond

We accept your lack of knowledge


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
Click to expand...

I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe



			Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
		


For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin never claimed that. You science illiterate types are wasting bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he did Hollie in his letter to Hooker, you will now learn
> 
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted, nothing about DNA. You're a shameless fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly stupid Darwin was completely ignorant to the DNA code, in his mind life was pond scum, if Darwin knew what DNA was he would never have claimed that life was goo from a pond
> 
> We accept your lack of knowledge
Click to expand...

Quite a dance. Your DNA fraud was a total bust.


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
Click to expand...

Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?

There’s a good boy.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a very smart man, unfortunately he did not know of the complexity of DNA, if he has he would never have claimed that it magically created itself in a pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin never claimed that. You science illiterate types are wasting bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he did Hollie in his letter to Hooker, you will now learn
> 
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted, nothing about DNA. You're a shameless fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly stupid Darwin was completely ignorant to the DNA code, in his mind life was pond scum, if Darwin knew what DNA was he would never have claimed that life was goo from a pond
> 
> We accept your lack of knowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a dance. Your DNA fraud was a total bust.
Click to expand...

What DNA fraud?  Life was DNA based in Darwins time silly

You are now reduced to the babbling information less fool that you are


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
Click to expand...

The truth does not change silly

You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God

*Charles Darwin quotation
on the spontaneous generation of life
in some - warm little pond*
In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.


> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.





			Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
Click to expand...

I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChemEngineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's all they have.  If it goes, so do careers across America.  They have staked their reputations on 1859 tautology written by a self-confessed mediocre individual, whose own father said he would never amount to anything.
> 
> 2.  The need for Leftists to feel superior to everyone else. THEY know, and if you disagree, you are just stupid.  End of discussion.  Join them like a good Comrade and wear your mask until told you may remove it.
Click to expand...




It is actually the subtext of my every post.
And I have a far more malevolent explanation.

Good to see you again.


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
Click to expand...

Kweationists DEPEND on DISHONEST, UNCONTEXTED 'quote mining'.

What did Darwin think?
What would be the problem if he did believe that the right chemical/molecular components DID, with the aid of an energy source, eventually arrange into a self-reproducing structure?
Is that less believable than GodDidIt?

IAC
*Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life*








						Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
					

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the 'Creator' in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team now...



					www.sciencedaily.com
				



[.....]
*The origin of life hypothesis*

A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that _"the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable,"_ gave the researchers their clue.

In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin _imagines_ a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy.

In other letters, the naturalist admitted to colleagues such as Alfred Russel Wallace or Ernst Haeckel that spontaneous generation was important to the coherence of the theory. However, *"at the same time, he acknowledged that science was not advanced enough to deal with the question (hence his reluctance to speak of it in public) and that he would not live to see it resolved,"* Peretó points out."

You JERK.
It was easy to Google and not use Kweationist.kom or AnswersInGenePiss for quote mining.

`


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you'd rather change the subject.
> 
> Must be painful for you,. huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf are you talking about? Are you in the right thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is science, not theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, angry xtian cranks have little knowledge of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you still can't name the species that you claim were observed speciating
Click to expand...

Other than the ones I supplied to you?


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the truth in the very first post
> 
> 
> 
> False. At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis. And you have made it clear -- with your embarrassing crybabying and tap dancing -- that, at no point, are you going to muster the courage to do this.
> 
> This successful demonstration has concluded. You are a fraud and an intellectual midget. Can't even answer the simple question...what an embarrassing, insubstantial ball of fluff you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "At no point have you stated what you believe to be the correct hypothesis."
> 
> The thread proves that what you accept is false....Darwin's theory.
> I never said I would provide the actual explanation for diversity of organisms.
> 
> I merely proved that you were easily fooled by government school.
> No wonder you're so upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neato! But you still haven't worked up the courage to state what you think is the correct hypothesis. Nor will you. Ever. Because you are a fraud and an intellectual midget.
Click to expand...

I've asked her the same question and, though it was like pulling teeth, she did finally answer it.  Her answer to the question was essentially "I don't know", followed by the claim that "no one knows".


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
Click to expand...

How should I know why they teach what they do? Not my problem.

So where do all the different animals come from?


----------



## ChemEngineer

abu afak said:


> You JERK.
> It was easy to Google and not use Kweationist.kom or AnswersInGenePiss for quote mining.
> `



Calling others "JERK" is unintelligent and anti-scientific. That's you in a nutshell.
The subject is "most famous fakes in science," not creationism and not the Holy Bible.
Your attempt to derail the thread is typical of the hateful, intolerant Left.
I won't waste another second reading your nonsense.  
Join your fellow Leftists on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto

*“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” – Brandolini’s Law*


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer said:


> Calling others "JERK" is unintelligent and anti-scientific. That's you in a nutshell.
> The subject is "most famous fakes in science," not creationism and not the Holy Bible.
> Your attempt to derail the thread is typical of the hateful, intolerant Left.
> I won't waste another second reading your nonsense.
> Join your fellow Leftists on my Ignore List.
> 
> ciao brutto
> 
> *“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” – Brandolini’s Law*


So *NO Rebuttal. NOTHING On Topic.
GAMEOVER.*
My post had Meat, yours .. Zero.
You can't debate me you Kweationist KlownS.
In fact, you can't debate ANYONE.
You used to have Half a board on Ignore.
LOL
`


----------



## Taz

esalla said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a scientific requirement for DNA unless you believe that something just pops into existence from nothing which all aspects of modern science forbid
Click to expand...

So where do all the different animals come from? And god didn’t bring the universe into being?


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
Click to expand...

LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas

Next


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas
> 
> Next
Click to expand...

You made a good choice to run away.


----------



## esalla

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> -----------------------
> I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first claim, that houses and clothes "evolve" simply indicates that people learn how to do things more efficiently and comfortably.  We prosper over time and make nicer things for ourselves.
> That mankind has grown taller is at least in part attributable to better nutrition and health care.  That's a fact.  But nevertheless, adaptation is microevolution, not change in kind.  It's a fact.
> 
> ==========================
> 
> You see what you want to see, and refute anything that does not fit your paradigm.  Can't be any more unfair and anti-science than that.
> 
> I refer you to _*The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions*_, by David Berlinski, *Illogical Atheism - A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinking by a
> Lapsed Agnostic *by Bo Jinn, and _*The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, *_by Vox Day.
> 
> My notes on Vox Day's brilliant book were sent to you so you could see some light of day.
> I also have notes on Bo Jinn's book which I had to request on loan from the Library of Congress, such are Leftist libraries across the nation that they are afraid to purchase any books conservative Christians might wish to read.  "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
> 
> *So are public libraries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "microevolution" uses the word"evolution", meaning that you agree that evolution is a fact.
> 
> I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.
> 
> You believe in the Devil, making you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not matter if evolution happens as there is no way that DNA formed out of nothing in a pond.  Science proves that code has to have a code writer, so God created his work to improve which is what all creators seek, the only difference is God created his work to improve itself so we have adaptation and evolution.
> 
> No big deal actually it does not need to be one or the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we don't yet know how DNA was formed or if it might have come from space on a meteor. Ignorance doesn't default to an invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the really cool thing, if DNA evolves on it's own and we take and find something that will exist on Mars even if we help by engineering it, we have proved God and anything on Earth may well evolve on Mars.  Now that's not entirely likely because Mars is not very Earthlike, but expand out and suppose we find a suitable but dead planet and we let life go and it takes.
> 
> God is proven, scary that it's us, but it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not god as in the invisible superbeing that poofed our universe into being. So it's the same word, but the god I just mentioned is not proven in your scenario. Just that we are a form of god, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a scientific requirement for DNA unless you believe that something just pops into existence from nothing which all aspects of modern science forbid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? And god didn’t bring the universe into being?
Click to expand...

I never mentioned the universe, however deGrasse Tyson now believes that God created it, he calls God a programmer though

The really dumb thing is that Tyson things he figured this out.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas
> 
> Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good choice to run away.
Click to expand...

I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning

You ate krap like usual

They teach you that at Harvard

Did you find anything to copy and paste that confirms your delusions?


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas
> 
> Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good choice to run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning
> 
> You ate krap like usual
> 
> They teach you that at Harvard
> 
> Did you find anything to copy and paste that confirms your delusions?
Click to expand...

Did you fall off your bike and bump your head?


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning
> You ate krap like usual
> They teach you that at Harvard
> 
> Did you find anything to copy and paste that confirms your delusions?


I did in quoting YOU just above, and you cannot answer it.
You were Porked/had to ignore it.
Game's over clown.
I eat low IQ, Quote mining, CreationcYsts for breakfast.

`


----------



## Dale Smith

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.
> 
> 
> No new species in your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _" While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation. "_
Click to expand...

Explain the six toed and six fingered giant skeletal remains with double rows of teeth that have been found all over the world?


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas
> 
> Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good choice to run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning
> 
> You ate krap like usual
> 
> They teach you that at Harvard
> 
> Did you find anything to copy and paste that confirms your delusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you fall off your bike and bump your head?
Click to expand...

No but I hit a new high heartbeat per minute on the hill where the big bang CMB was first identified.  175, up from 173 for my age I should not be able to go over 160 or so.  I get down to 47bpm at night

Did you enjoy your bacon and eggs?

LOL


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas
> 
> Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good choice to run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning
> 
> You ate krap like usual
> 
> They teach you that at Harvard
> 
> Did you find anything to copy and paste that confirms your delusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you fall off your bike and bump your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but I hit a new high heartbeat per minute on the hill where the big bang CMB was first identified.  175, up from 173 for my age I should not be able to go over 160 or so.  I get down to 47bpm at night
> 
> Did you enjoy your bacon and eggs?
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...

Off topic spam.


----------



## Dale Smith

Mac1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not meant to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

 I take her more seriously than you by a factor of a 1000.


----------



## abu afak

Dale Smith said:


> Explain the six toed and six fingered giant skeletal remains with double rows of teeth that have been found all over the world?


Explain why 99% of all things that ever lived are extinct.. including Proto Humans.
God's Mistakes?
What a ******* Mess!
(it's called trial-and-error/mutation/survival of the fittest)

`


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you're unable to provide such empirical evidence. Pretty typical for ignorant creationers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no evidence of anything either, all you do is to attack other people who are brighter than yourself, which includes the average downs syndrome patient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unable to refute my position, you're left to whine and moan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are nothing but complete ignorance which does not need to be refuted
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved what Darwin believed that you said he did not believe
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you cut and paste the same fraud several more times?
> 
> There’s a good boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth does not change silly
> 
> You said that Darwin never mentioned pond scum, sorry if I destroyed your false God
> 
> *Charles Darwin quotation
> on the spontaneous generation of life
> in some - warm little pond*
> In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond".
> 
> The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.
> 
> Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Hooker,
> 
> ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
> 
> But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the above several more times. You might want to edit your cutting and pasting to include the term “DNA” so as to make your fraudulent comments magically become true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you can not even find anything that confirms your dumb ideas
> 
> Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good choice to run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning
> 
> You ate krap like usual
> 
> They teach you that at Harvard
> 
> Did you find anything to copy and paste that confirms your delusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you fall off your bike and bump your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but I hit a new high heartbeat per minute on the hill where the big bang CMB was first identified.  175, up from 173 for my age I should not be able to go over 160 or so.  I get down to 47bpm at night
> 
> Did you enjoy your bacon and eggs?
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off topic spam.
Click to expand...

You have never posted any info on topic?

Just your hallucinations


----------



## Mac1958

Dale Smith said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not meant to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take her more seriously than you by a factor of a 1000.
Click to expand...

Well of course.  She's an obedient Trumpster.


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> Reality is not a game, but you keep playing and don't forget to chop all the little girls vaginas off because Allah said too


So:
1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF

2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)

3. Going for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.

`


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not a game, but you keep playing and don't forget to chop all the little girls vaginas off because Allah said too
> 
> 
> 
> So:
> 1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF
> 
> 2. You're too stupid to even look up abu afak. (not Muslim)
> 
> 3. Going for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Ask your question again, if that isn't too hard for a dumb Muslim


----------



## Dale Smith

Mac1958 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not meant to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take her more seriously than you by a factor of a 1000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well of course.  She's an obedient Trumpster.
Click to expand...

She is more intelligent than you.  BTW, dumb ass, I opted out of being a de-facto employee of USA.INC thus I do not participate in the election process of this banana republic......any thing else ya wanna say, dipshit?


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:
			
		

> Ask your question again, if that isn't too hard for a dumb Muslim


So:
1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF

2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)

3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.

`


----------



## Mac1958

Dale Smith said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not meant to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take her more seriously than you by a factor of a 1000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well of course.  She's an obedient Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is more intelligent than you.  BTW, dumb ass, I opted out of being a de-facto employee of USA.INC thus I do not participate in the election process of this banana republic......any thing else ya wanna say, dipshit?
Click to expand...

That's okay Rambo, I'm just fine.


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask your question again, if that isn't too hard for a dumb Muslim
> 
> 
> 
> So:
> 1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF
> 
> 2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)
> 
> 3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You never ask any question silly.................................

But you stay there in your delusion and keep yourself company


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> You never ask any question silly.................................
> 
> But you stay there in your delusion and keep yourself company


STILL:
1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF

2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)

3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.

`


----------



## Dale Smith

Mac1958 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did tell you.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're too dense for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that of importance to you?
> 
> Are you planning to propose?
> 
> 
> I should tell you now, you could be a chocolate covered millionaire, giving away free shoes, and the answer would still be no.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you take a hint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay, sweetie.  You'll often play this game, and you'll often quote the Bible, but you carefully stop there.
> 
> You're not the first person to fraudulently use religion as a weapon, and you won't be the last.
> 
> You and the Jihadis, peas in a pod, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about religion in my posts.
> 
> You are lying because I've embarrassed you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your cut and paste “quotes” are taken from creation.com, the Disco’tute and Answers in Genesis, yes, your posts are about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's not meant to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take her more seriously than you by a factor of a 1000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well of course.  She's an obedient Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is more intelligent than you.  BTW, dumb ass, I opted out of being a de-facto employee of USA.INC thus I do not participate in the election process of this banana republic......any thing else ya wanna say, dipshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's okay Rambo, I'm just fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought, dickweed


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never ask any question silly.................................
> 
> But you stay there in your delusion and keep yourself company
> 
> 
> 
> So/STILL:
> 1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF
> 
> 2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)
> 
> 3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I see you have chosen to leave out the part about the question you never ask

LOL

Ya know you are allowed to call your Mom for helpy


----------



## abu afak

Quesadilla now 0-for-5
STILL:
1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF

2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)

3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.

`


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never ask any question silly.................................
> 
> But you stay there in your delusion and keep yourself company
> 
> 
> 
> STILL:
> 1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF
> 
> 2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)
> 
> 3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Darwin? What a fucking joke. A eugenicist is your lame "gotcha" attempt? Swing AND a miss! Stick to your lame attempts at pushing gorebal warming, dumb ass.


----------



## ChemEngineer

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan

Now I don't  necessarily agree that almost nothing is known for certain, BUT Sagan is something of a god to Leftists and atheists.  So beginning with his quote, let's just glance at the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.  I've posted on the subject before here and the atheists and Leftists change the subject or make up nonsense.

The original synthesis of each and every protein and enzyme in your body and mine has to be explained by some *scientific* mechanism if you are an acolyte of Darwin.  We have 20 different amino acids that make up our bodies.  How is the first one selected for a synthesis?
1/20 is its probability.  The next one, 1/20.  This continues for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of iterations.

Titin is a protein in your muscles.  It is made up of 33,450 amino acids in a precise sequence.
What is 1/20 to the 33,450th power?  It's nil.  It was nil tens of thousands of orders of magnitude ago.  But it even gets worse. Much worse.

1.  There are ~2,000 or more proteins in your body.  Two thousand.

2. Proteins form peptide bonds but they also form non-peptide bonds with equal probability.
So what is 1/2 to the 33,450th power for the correct peptide bond?

3.  Proteins fold.  How do they "know" when and where to fold?  It's exceedingly difficult even to know where to assign probability of folding, but it has to be considered, IF you can even get that far.

4.  These amino acids are all levorotary, or L forms except for one amino acid.  The opposite is dextrorotary, or D form. We're made up of L amino acids.
So once again, 1/2 to the 33,450th power.  Just for ONE protein.

*"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan*

I wrote to his publisher asking about dozens of glaring errors in several of his books. Carl wrote back to me ignoring all his errors. He just asked me to buy his newest book.  I never bought one!  I got them all at the library.  What a greedy little man.  I sold his letter on eBay for $125 and Isaac Asimov's postcard on eBay for $75.     Both of them believe in God today, you betcha.

I might scan both and post them after redacting my personal information.


----------



## abu afak

Dale Smith said:


> Darwin? What a fucking joke. A eugenicist is your lame "gotcha" attempt? Swing AND a miss! Stick to your lame attempts at pushing gorebal warming, dumb ass.


*I remember you now CONSPIRACY NUMBSKULL!

POSTING YOUR WACKADOODLE "CHEMTRAILS" Into Climate threads!

GIVE THE OTHER PATIENTS A TURN AT THE KEYBOARD.

LOFL

Religion/God is just another basesless Conspiracy theory.
`*


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan
> 
> Now I don't  necessarily agree that almost nothing is known for certain, BUT Sagan is something of a god to Leftists and atheists.  So beginning with his quote, let's just glance at the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.  I've posted on the subject before here and the atheists and Leftists change the subject or make up nonsense.
> 
> The original synthesis of each and every protein and enzyme in your body and mine has to be explained by some *scientific* mechanism if you are an acolyte of Darwin.  We have 20 different amino acids that make up our bodies.  How is the first one selected for a synthesis?
> 1/20 is its probability.  The next one, 1/20.  This continues for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of iterations.
> 
> Titin is a protein in your muscles.  It is made up of 33,450 amino acids in a precise sequence.
> What is 1/20 to the 33,450th power?  It's nil.  It was nil tens of thousands of orders of magnitude ago.  But it even gets worse. Much worse.
> 
> 1.  There are ~2,000 or more proteins in your body.  Two thousand.
> 
> 2. Proteins form peptide bonds but they also form non-peptide bonds with equal probability.
> So what is 1/2 to the 33,450th power for the correct peptide bond?
> 
> 3.  Proteins fold.  How do they "know" when and where to fold?  It's exceedingly difficult even to know where to assign probability of folding, but it has to be considered, IF you can even get that far.
> 
> 4.  These amino acids are all levorotary, or L forms except for one amino acid.  The opposite is dextrorotary, or D form. We're made up of L amino acids.
> So once again, 1/2 to the 33,450th power.  Just for ONE protein.
> 
> *"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan*
> 
> I wrote to his publisher asking about dozens of glaring errors in several of his books. Carl wrote back to me ignoring all his errors. He just asked me to buy his newest book.  I never bought one!  I got them all at the library.  What a greedy little man.  I sold his letter on eBay for $125 and Isaac Asimov's postcard on eBay for $75.     Both of them believe in God today, you betcha.
> 
> I might scan both and post them after redacting my personal information.


Carl Sagan died in 1996. Asimov died in 1992, you betcha.  You claim both of them believe in the gods? How do you know that?


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin? What a fucking joke. A eugenicist is your lame "gotcha" attempt? Swing AND a miss! Stick to your lame attempts at pushing gorebal warming, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> *I remember you now CONSPIRACY NUMBSKULL!
> 
> POSTING YOUR WACKADOODLE "CHEMTRAILS" Into Climate threads!
> 
> GIVE THE OTHER PATIENTS A TURN AT THE KEYBOARD.
> 
> LOFL
> 
> Religion/God is just another basesless Conspiracy theory.
> `*
Click to expand...

Like gorebal warming and that the earth will die? We will all die in ten years if we don't pay the bankers a carbon tax? That will cool the planet how, exactly? 

You really are not impressive......


----------



## ChemEngineer

Dale Smith said:


> Like gorebal warming and that the earth will die? We will all die in ten years if we don't pay the bankers a carbon tax? That will cool the planet how, exactly?



Annual temperature ranges go from 70 degrees in Florida to 145 degrees in Alaska and North Dakota.
So NATURALLY an increase of 2 degrees Fahrenheit OVER THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS will kill all life on the planet. Just ask any extremist wacko hypocrite, who continues to:
1. Take vacations around the world,
2.  Drive their car to entertainment, friends, stores, school, games, sports, you name it,
3.  Air condition their homes in summer and heat them in winter,
4.  Take hot showers,
5.  Drive to Environmental Wacko protests, Earth Day giddyfests, Antifa riots, BLM screamfests, and 
other extremist nonsense get togethers.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.



Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.


----------



## james bond

Here's something I learned this month and evolutionists cannot explain how buffaloes, birds, bass, and bees travel together and somehow do not bump into each other.  For humans, it takes much work and practice for them to coordinate their movements together, but divergent and unrelated animals can do it by instinct.  The air force Blue Angels flying in formation takes much practice and work.  The same with putting together a massive song and dance routine for the super bowl.  Yet many animals can do coordinate their movements in an instant and somehow avoid colliding into each other.  This shows evolution does not happen as separate lines of animals can do it while the higher animals like humans can't.  We can't even move together when stopped at a traffic light and when it turns green.  Another failure for the science of atheism to explain.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
Click to expand...

Creationers did not invent the scientific method. 

There is no science of atheism. 

Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How should I know why they teach what they do? Not my problem.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
Click to expand...



"How should I know why they teach what they do? "


The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?

Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation,


A pity you've never gotten to that realization.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How should I know why they teach what they do? Not my problem.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> 
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation,
> 
> 
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
Click to expand...

More of your ignorant comments about Darwin's theory being provably false yet you offer nothing to support your ignorant and uninformed comment.

Yes. A pity you perpetuate your ignorant and uninformed opinions.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here's something I learned this month and evolutionists cannot explain how buffaloes, birds, bass, and bees travel together and somehow do not bump into each other.  For humans, it takes much work and practice for them to coordinate their movements together, but divergent and unrelated animals can do it by instinct.  The air force Blue Angels flying in formation takes much practice and work.  The same with putting together a massive song and dance routine for the super bowl.  Yet many animals can do coordinate their movements in an instant and somehow avoid colliding into each other.  This shows evolution does not happen as separate lines of animals can do it while the higher animals like humans can't.  We can't even move together when stopped at a traffic light and when it turns green.  Another failure for the science of atheism to explain.


That's so silly.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.


It's called a theory for a reason.

So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?


----------



## Taz

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How should I know why they teach what they do? Not my problem.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> 
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation,
> 
> 
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of your ignorant comments about Darwin's theory being provably false yet you offer nothing to support your ignorant and uninformed comment.
> 
> Yes. A pity you perpetuate your ignorant and uninformed opinions.
Click to expand...

Where does NorthKoreaChic think all the different animals come from? She won't answer me for some reason. Maybe she thinks her answer is foolish?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
Click to expand...




It's taught as though it's a proven fact.

Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
Click to expand...



You've 'stumped' everybody.

There is no proven answer to that question.

Now answer my question.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
Click to expand...

I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've 'stumped' everybody.
> 
> There is no proven answer to that question.
> 
> Now answer my question.
Click to expand...

If I haven't stumped you, then why don't you answer: where do all the different animals come from?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
Click to expand...


"I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "

It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.

Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've 'stumped' everybody.
> 
> There is no proven answer to that question.
> 
> Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I haven't stumped you, then why don't you answer: where do all the different animals come from?
Click to expand...



If Darwin's theory doesn't answer that question.....where is the answer?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
Click to expand...

It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've 'stumped' everybody.
> 
> There is no proven answer to that question.
> 
> Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I haven't stumped you, then why don't you answer: where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwin's theory doesn't answer that question.....where is the answer?
Click to expand...

That's what I've been asking you for the last 3 days, lol.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
Click to expand...



"It's the most plausible theory."


It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.

You're simply too easily led.



*"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*

. *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”

Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
Click to expand...

Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
Click to expand...


Actually, 









						What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
					

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?




					www.livescience.com
				




Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
Click to expand...



Scientists dismiss Darwin.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)


----------



## Hollie

Political chic “quoted”

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

So who is Philip Zaleski?





__





						Philip Zaleski: Life and Work
					

Biographical information on author Philip Zaleski at World Wisdom books




					www.worldwisdom.com
				




Philip Zaleski is an author and editor of works on spirituality, with a particular focus on prayer and the practice of spiritual life. He is the author of  _The Recollected Heart_ and _Gifts of the Spirit: Living the Wisdom of the Great Religious Traditions_, and with his wife Carol, co-author and co-editor, respectively, of _Prayer: A History_ and _The Book of Heaven_.

So, no. Philip Zaleski has no science credentials. Nor does Political chic.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
Click to expand...


Here we have the usual fraud perpetrated by the Disco’tute / Harun Yahya groupie.

It’s the typical pattern of cutting and pasting edited, altered and parsed “quotes”.

These frauds perpetrated by creationers are so common, the talkorigins site has entire catalogs that expose the usual frauds perpetrated by the fundie hacks.



			Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
		


*Quote #37*


> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)


In the passages quoted, Eldredge and Tattersall are discussing the merits of gradualism, something the quote miner has left out, as we can see:



> The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories.
> That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
> The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
Click to expand...

Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


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


Lot of ramblings that translate into, you know nothing about science. Seriously, does Faux News write your medical scrips ? How about your cell phone ? Is that magic conjured up by Mike Pense? Geesus, you walk through a life that’s completely  dependent upon the science of people you discredit. You likely wouldn’t be alive to day without the work done in evolution by scientists.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


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



Your frantic cutting and pasting of phony, edited and parsed ''quotes'' depicts real ignorance of some very basic concepts of reasoning and is a rather graphic display of your poorly developed analytical skills.

There is no ''belief'' required with regard to scientific principles. When the data and evidence support the scientific principle, one can come to conclusions about that principle.

Might I suggest you spend less time mining ''quotes'' from Harun Yahya and spend more time paying attention to the factual data presented to you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
Click to expand...



What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Lot of ramblings that translate into, you know nothing about science. Seriously, does Faux News write your medical scrips ? How about your cell phone ? Is that magic conjured up by Mike Pense? Geesus, you walk through a life that’s completely  dependent upon the science of people you discredit. You likely wouldn’t be alive to day without the work done in evolution by scientists.
Click to expand...



What 'science' are you referring to?


Certainly not Darwinism.


"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
Click to expand...

Why the need for the "Darwinism'' slogan? That simply identifies the stereotypical slogan you mined from Harun Yahya. 

You can't identify what is not factual about Darwinian theory in view of the demonstrated support for the theory so your comment is rather pointless.

Arks, supernaturalism, magic, fears and superstitions tell us nothing about the natural world.

Another display showcasing your lack of cognitive skills.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
Click to expand...

So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Lot of ramblings that translate into, you know nothing about science. Seriously, does Faux News write your medical scrips ? How about your cell phone ? Is that magic conjured up by Mike Pense? Geesus, you walk through a life that’s completely  dependent upon the science of people you discredit. You likely wouldn’t be alive to day without the work done in evolution by scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> Certainly not Darwinism.
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
Click to expand...

The ''quote'' by Lovtrup is another fraud you cut and paste relentlessly. That's quite comical as the fuller ''quote'' refutes your intent.

More of your dumping the same “quotes” that were shown to refute your cutting and pasting.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31485065_Darwinism_The_Refutation_of_a_Myth

“... appears that Lovtrup is defending macro-mutations, and he rejects micro-mutations as the sole mechanism of evolution (p261,274). Indeed on p369 we find: "It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the most compelling evidence in its favour“ 

Thanks.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> What 'science' are you referring to?


Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time.  . Many of Darwin’s  conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.


----------



## Dagosa

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
Click to expand...

You have a plethora of the best sources to answer questions like that ....not found on this forum. It’s worth it to use them.


----------



## miketx

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> Darwin's is without proof, and in many ways, disproven.
> 
> *The real question is why it is sooooo important for certain ideologies to claim science has found the explanation for speciation when, as of now, it has not.*
> 
> 
> Why is Darwin so important to a certain political view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to tell me?  Is this another secret?
> 
> How do you think we got here?  What is your best personal guess?  Or perhaps you're like me, and you admit you don't know?
Click to expand...

She answered your question troll.


----------



## miketx

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
Click to expand...

What cereal box has evolution theory printed on it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
Click to expand...




So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?

Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
Click to expand...



Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?


"Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."

Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
Click to expand...


Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit. 


You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)

I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.


----------



## Dagosa

miketx said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What cereal box has evolution theory printed on it?
Click to expand...

The one trump and his dumb ass  uses his tiny hands on.


----------



## miketx

Dagosa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What cereal box has evolution theory printed on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one trump 5he dumb ass uses his tiny hands on.
Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
Click to expand...

Well, quite simply, Darwinian theory is supported by evidence.

What's the reason your preferred ideology of Harun Yahya'ism is _not _applied to schoolchildren?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...



You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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


----------



## PoliticalChic

miketx said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What cereal box has evolution theory printed on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one trump 5he dumb ass uses his tiny hands on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell does that mean?
Click to expand...



It means 'changing the subject.'


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Click to expand...

Cutting and pasting from someone's blog. 

Anything from the supermarket tabloids you want to cut and paste?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Click to expand...

It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
Click to expand...


"He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."

Such as?


As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.

Pretty weak of you.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
Click to expand...

Pretty comical coming from the Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## Taz

Dagosa said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a plethora of the best sources to answer questions like that ....not found on this forum. It’s worth it to use them.
Click to expand...

Like what?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
Click to expand...

I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.

So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
Click to expand...



You're the one changing the subject.

My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
Click to expand...

Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> State what?


The hypothesis you think is correct. Are you retarded? That's 7 times, now.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
Click to expand...



I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.

And, as all have learned.....you can't.

That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.


Do a little research before your next error.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> State what?
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis you think is correct. Are you retarded? That's 7 times, now.
Click to expand...



My mission is to reveal that the propaganda you've accepted, is false.

I have no intention of answering the question that no scientist can answer.


The subtext has always been...why is it so important that an erroneous thesis be accepted as fact.

And you are afraid to answer that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> I have no intention of answering the question that no scientist can answer.


I know you don't. Because you are just an intellectual pussy and a naysayer. Don't worry, it was just a demonstration. Nobody gives a shit about your hilariously stupid denial. That's why you are here, anonymously shouting into the void, a laughingstock.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of answering the question that no scientist can answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you don't. Because you are just an intellectual pussy and a naysayer. Don't worry, it was just a demonstration. Nobody gives a shit about your hilariously stupid denial. That's why you are here, anonymously shouting into the void, a laughingstock.
Click to expand...



When you resort to profanity, you pretty much admit you've lost the argument.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.


For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.
Click to expand...



Is this your admission that Darwinism is a proven failure?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
Click to expand...

I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that. 

So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I have no intention of answering the question that no scientist can answer.


What you meant to say is that you have no intention of answering the question that only 95% of US biologists can answer, and you'll remain in the minority.  With your views and values, I'm sure you're much more comfortable there but you can't really expect the rest of the world to ignore science and to not teach our children the best information we have.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[18][19][20][21][22] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this your admission that Darwinism is a proven failure?
Click to expand...

Evolution will only be considered a failure when a better theory comes along.  Got one?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
Click to expand...

It’s comical how you’re reduced to attempts at schoolyard insults when you’re unable to address some pretty basic questions about biological evolution.

This might be a good time to present the creationer “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation”*_

Shirley, you can find that at Harun Yahya.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
Click to expand...

My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.


----------



## Dagosa

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this your admission that Darwinism is a proven failure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution will only be considered a failure when a better theory comes along.  Got one?
Click to expand...

Well, the theory of evolution has stood the test of time. Subtleties in deferent premises that make it up may be altered but I would  not expect anything   in our lifetime to be dramatically changed.  Literally, Every piece of work we do in genetics can reinforce or slightly alter our views .


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
Click to expand...



I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.

Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of answering the question that no scientist can answer.
> 
> 
> 
> What you meant to say is that you have no intention of answering the question that only 95% of US biologists can answer, and you'll remain in the minority.  With your views and values, I'm sure you're much more comfortable there but you can't really expect the rest of the world to ignore science and to not teach our children the best information we have.
> 
> The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[18][19][20][21][22] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]
Click to expand...



I never mind being 'in a minority.'

I'm not a weak sissy like you.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your admission that Darwinism is a proven failure?
Click to expand...

That’s bullshit. Just because Newtonian physics is replaced when dealing with particles  at the atomic level, doesn’t mean that Newton was a failure. It’s really stupid to assume Darwin  was wrong when he did his work before Modern equipment was developed. Was Edison a failure because incandescent light bulbs he invented have been replaced by LEDs ? I have never seen so much science illiteracy. But keep trying to ask.....you sound less educated.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this your admission that Darwinism is a proven failure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution will only be considered a failure when a better theory comes along.  Got one?
Click to expand...



Nonsense.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin has nothing to do with 'how we got here'...how life began. It is provided as an explanation for the diversity of life as it appears now.
> 
> There are numerous theories, a number of which I have noted in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who missed those alternative theories you previously noted, would you be so kind note them once again?  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your admission that Darwinism is a proven failure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s bullshit. Just because Newtonian physics is replaced when dealing with particles  at the atomic level, doesn’t mean that Newton was a failure. It’s really stupid to assume Darwin  was wrong when he did his work before Modern equipment was developed. Was Edison a failure because incandescent light bulbs he invented have been replaced by LEDs ? I have never seen so much science illiteracy. But keep trying to ask.....you sound less educated.
Click to expand...



No vulgarity.
'


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
Click to expand...



What statements????


You ran from your own claims.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Taz said:


> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?



Talk about juvenile insults....  Why don't you ask God how He does things.
Rational people can appreciate that the creations which abound had a Creator.  Irrational people think they simply "happened."  From nothing.  No wands needed in IrrationalThink.

*The Irrational Atheist *by Vox Day
*Illogical Atheism* by Bo Jinn
*The Devil's Delusion *by David Berlinski
*Rare Earth* by Ward and Brownlee
*The Privileged Planet- How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery *by Gonzalez and Richards

How you bounced out of my Ignore List, I do not know, but back into that rathole you go.

ciao brutto


----------



## miketx

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting from someone's blog.
> 
> Anything from the supermarket tabloids you want to cut and paste?
Click to expand...

If she wanted to she would have, nothing your troll hide could do about it.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
Click to expand...

So is there anything other than Darwinism?


----------



## Taz

ChemEngineer said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about juvenile insults....  Why don't you ask God how He does things.
> Rational people can appreciate that the creations which abound had a Creator.  Irrational people think they simply "happened."  From nothing.  No wands needed in IrrationalThink.
> 
> *The Irrational Atheist *by Vox Day
> *Illogical Atheism* by Bo Jinn
> *The Devil's Delusion *by David Berlinski
> *Rare Earth* by Ward and Brownlee
> *The Privileged Planet- How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery *by Gonzalez and Richards
> 
> How you bounced out of my Ignore List, I do not know, but back into that rathole you go.
> 
> ciao brutto
Click to expand...

So how did all the different animals come about if not through evolution? God put everything one by one himself?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
Click to expand...



Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What statements????
> 
> 
> You ran from your own claims.
Click to expand...

My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,









						What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
					

The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.



					www.britannica.com


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.


If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.
Click to expand...

It's embarrassing for everyone except you to watch you cower and evade.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What statements????
> 
> 
> You ran from your own claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
> 
> 
> The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...



*"Correct: How natural selection works within species*
_Anagenesis_ is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."



That's false.

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can*, natural selection cannot accomplish it, *because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275


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.


But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski


The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve *demonstrated*, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the _cover of natural selection_ to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science _actually says_ but doesn’t want us to _notice_ that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all



About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
Click to expand...


"So is there anything other than Darwinism?"


Lots.

“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.



That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *



Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”





“Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid



“The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.



“Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)



The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.

As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells

problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What statements????
> 
> 
> You ran from your own claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
> 
> 
> The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Correct: How natural selection works within species*
> _Anagenesis_ is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."
> 
> 
> 
> That's false.
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can*, natural selection cannot accomplish it, *because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
> 
> 
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski
> 
> 
> The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve *demonstrated*, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the _cover of natural selection_ to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science _actually says_ but doesn’t want us to _notice_ that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all
> 
> 
> 
> About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?
Click to expand...


It's funny to see your entire knowledge if science is contained within about a half-dozen phony ''quotes'' you litter threads with. 

The ''quote'' by Lovtrup is another fraud you cut and paste relentlessly. That's quite comical as the fuller ''quote'' refutes your intent.

More of your dumping the same “quotes” that were shown to refute your cutting and pasting.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31485065_Darwinism_The_Refutation_of_a_Myth

“... appears that Lovtrup is defending macro-mutations, and he rejects micro-mutations as the sole mechanism of evolution (p261,274). Indeed on p369 we find: "It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the most compelling evidence in its favour“

Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
Click to expand...


Your knowledge of science revolves around Irving Kristol, a ''prominent social theorist''?

Is your primary care doctor the same person who does your nails?


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.
Click to expand...



Here's another majority you might be interested in joining...


On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
[November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]


Some of us think for ourselves.....then there's folks like you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What statements????
> 
> 
> You ran from your own claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
> 
> 
> The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Correct: How natural selection works within species*
> _Anagenesis_ is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."
> 
> 
> 
> That's false.
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can*, natural selection cannot accomplish it, *because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
> 
> 
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski
> 
> 
> The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve *demonstrated*, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the _cover of natural selection_ to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science _actually says_ but doesn’t want us to _notice_ that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all
> 
> 
> 
> About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?
Click to expand...

Why ? Because you are the copy paste queen who thinks they know more then a publication from Purdue U. 
You’ve done nothing but show your ignorance. You’re a waste of time. Moving on.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What statements????
> 
> 
> You ran from your own claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
> 
> 
> The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Correct: How natural selection works within species*
> _Anagenesis_ is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."
> 
> 
> 
> That's false.
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can*, natural selection cannot accomplish it, *because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
> 
> 
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski
> 
> 
> The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve *demonstrated*, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the _cover of natural selection_ to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science _actually says_ but doesn’t want us to _notice_ that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all
> 
> 
> 
> About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why ? Because you are the copy paste queen who thinks they know more then a publication from Purdue U.
> You’ve done nothing but show your ignorance. You’re a waste if time. Moving on.
Click to expand...




Obviously I do know more.

I know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

And I just provided reading sources for you.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
Click to expand...


Did you realize that you provided a dead link from 2006 in the above? 

Did you even bother to fact check what you cut and pasted?

See below for the current link, you parody of a mindless drone.


			https://faseb.org/portals/2/PDFs/opa/Why%20is%20it%20important%20to%20teach%20evolution.pdf
		


Why is it important to teach evolution? Understanding evolution is critical for understanding biology. As the preeminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It explains the striking similarities among vastly different forms of life, the changes that occur within populations, and the development of new life forms. Excluding evolution from the science curricula or compromising its treatment deprives students of this fundamental and unifying scientific concept to explain the natural world. Teaching and learning about evolution have immense practical value that extends beyond understanding our world. The principles of evolution underlie improvements in crops, livestock, and farming methods. Natural selection accounts for the rise in pesticide resistance among agricultural pests and informs the design of new technologies to protect crops from insects and disease. Scientists are applying lessons from evolutionary biology to environmental conservation: plants and bacteria adapted to polluted environments are being used to replenish lost vegetation and to clean up toxic environments. Species from microbes to mammals adapt to climate change; studying the mechanism and rate of these changes can help conservation experts formulate appropriate measures to protect species facing extinction. Understanding evolution is also central to the advancement of medicine. Indeed, the entire field of “evolutionary medicine” is devoted to using the principles of evolution to study and treat human illness and disease. Concepts such as adaptation and mutation inform therapies and strategies to combat pathogens, including influenza. Models developed by evolutionary biologists have shed light on genetic variation that may account for an increased risk of Alzheimer’s and coronary heart disease. Knowing the evolutionary relationships among species allows scientists to choose appropriate organisms for the study of diseases, such as HIV. Scientists are even using the principles of natural selection to identify new drugs for detecting and treating diseases such as cancer. Studying evolution is an excellent way for students to learn about the process of scientific inquiry. Evolution offers countless and diverse examples of the ways scientists gather and analyze information, test competing hypotheses, and ultimately come to a consensus about explanations for natural phenomena. Understanding science is essential for making informed decisions and has become increasingly important for innovation and competitiveness in the 21st century workplace. It is critical, therefore, that students receive a sound science education including evolution. Removing evolution from the science classroom or allowing it to be compromised not only deprives students of a fundamental tenet of biology and medicine,


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, do you know what science is ? Yes, Darwin was a scientist. You have this uninformed idea that science is 100% perfect from day one. Nothing is, least of all anyother measure.. Science helps understand complex ideas dependent on the information available at the time. Darwin‘S  are some. Many of his conjectures are still valid, some are not. Do you get your ideas from a cereal box ? Cause really, nothing else comes close. Are you going to say Newton is not a real scientist  even though Newtonian physics has been improved upon ? Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> Can you provide the proof that suckered you into accepting the failed concept, Darwinism?
> 
> 
> "Many of his conjectures are still valid,..."
> 
> Such as? (This is the point where you realize that you don't know what you're talking about.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to impress no  one on my ability to google. The best science is FREE. It’s not your made up bullshit that you have give a 15% tithing just to hear a preacher fill you full of shit.
> 
> 
> You’re question, if you knew science, should be.....Do you really want to know which ideas of Darwin are still valid and which are not ? That answer is easy. After gathering more evidence then Darwin ever had available , there are at least 3500 university sources that can tell you. ( among Hundreds  of others)
> 
> I’ve learned long ago that doing the work for a lazy ass denier does no good. If they aren’t going to believe institutes like Johns Hopkins, they ain’t going believe me. Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Is this why?
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a stupid non science question. It assumed Darwin was wrong. He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had. Science is not wrong. It’s a methodology. You either believe in it or the wizzard of Oz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "He wasn’t necessarily wrong THEN given the evidence he had."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> As of this post, you are still nothing but a windbag, refusing to admit you've been indoctrinated.
> 
> Pretty weak of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up. You’re the wind bag You can find the address of a favorite restaurant can’t you. Should be easy to find Darwin’s life story. I’m not doing any lazy ass work for a denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simply asked you to support statements *you've* made.
> 
> And, as all have learned.....you can't.
> 
> That's a characteristic of the mindless indoctrination your sort has undergone.
> 
> 
> Do a little research before your next error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My statements are supported by every science research  facility in the world that knows the  work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out  of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What statements????
> 
> 
> You ran from your own claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution
> 
> 
> The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Correct: How natural selection works within species*
> _Anagenesis_ is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."
> 
> 
> 
> That's false.
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can*, natural selection cannot accomplish it, *because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
> 
> 
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski
> 
> 
> The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve *demonstrated*, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the _cover of natural selection_ to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science _actually says_ but doesn’t want us to _notice_ that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all
> 
> 
> 
> About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why ? Because you are the copy paste queen who thinks they know more then a publication from Purdue U.
> You’ve done nothing but show your ignorance. You’re a waste if time. Moving on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I do know more.
> 
> I know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> And I just provided reading sources for you.
Click to expand...


Actually, you're wrong, as usual. 



			Observed Instances of Speciation
		




			Some More Observed Speciation Events
		




			CB910:  New species
		


I just provided reading sources for you.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.



“know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “

In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ? 
Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
Look up the definition of natural selection ....

You are a pounded thumb.


----------



## NoNukes

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How should I know why they teach what they do? Not my problem.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> 
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation,
> 
> 
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of your ignorant comments about Darwin's theory being provably false yet you offer nothing to support your ignorant and uninformed comment.
> 
> Yes. A pity you perpetuate your ignorant and uninformed opinions.
Click to expand...

She does not know the difference between fact and opinion, and proves it constantly.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
Click to expand...



Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?


How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?


Ever?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> Queen is acceptable....but what science am I denying?
> 
> The propaganda called Darwin's theory????
> 
> 
> You're not one of the fools who imagines (I almost said 'thinks') that there is proof of Darwin, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think all the different animals came from? God abracadabra-ed them into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So where do you think all the different animals came from?"
> 
> Is this your admission that I have forced you to except that Darwin's theory is false?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can offer up an answer to my question that satisfies the scientist in me, I'll dump Darwin. No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite: provide what you claim as proof of the thesis proffered in government school......the one you bought like it was on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't say where you think all the different animals came from? (I always went to a private school so have no idea what they do in the public system).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did they teach Darwin's theory?
> 
> Did you look for proof, or simply nod your head?
> 
> Or.....can you provide proof of that theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was empirical proof, I'm guessing that they wouldn't still call it a theory. Is that the right answer?
> 
> Now where do you think all the different animals came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is taught as a fact.....it is not only not a fact, but there is empirical evidence that it is wrong.
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How should I know why they teach what they do? Not my problem.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> 
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation,
> 
> 
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of your ignorant comments about Darwin's theory being provably false yet you offer nothing to support your ignorant and uninformed comment.
> 
> Yes. A pity you perpetuate your ignorant and uninformed opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does not know the difference between fact and opinion, and proves it constantly.
Click to expand...



Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as though it has been proven factual?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
Click to expand...


“Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.

Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?


It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
Click to expand...




Of course it is.

You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.


“_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers

And this…

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


And this winner:

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




Write soon.....I like slapping you around.


----------



## aaronleland

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Engels was a fan of Darwin isn't a condemnation of Darwin any more than the fact that Hitler's love of Dogs prevents me from loving my puppy.
> 
> If you want to see a modern example of a scientific principle for personal and political gain ... look no further than Al Gore.
> 
> View attachment 354805
Click to expand...


You loving your puppy makes you exactly like Hitler.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.
Click to expand...




See what I mean.

The best you can do is lie.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
Click to expand...


You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.






__





						Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				





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



> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.





> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.





> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:


> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983


Also:


> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.


This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:


> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434


Also:


> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean.
> 
> The best you can do is lie.
Click to expand...

I see no reference. Where is it. Do I take your word or Trump’s


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another majority you might be interested in joining...
> 
> 
> On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
> [November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]
> 
> 
> Some of us think for ourselves.....then there's folks like you.
> 
> View attachment 365364
Click to expand...

I think you know as little about voting as your president does.    There is no doubt that the plebiscite result was manipulated and rigged.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another majority you might be interested in joining...
> 
> 
> On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
> [November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]
> 
> 
> Some of us think for ourselves.....then there's folks like you.
> 
> View attachment 365364
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you know as little about voting as your president does.    There is no doubt that the plebiscite result was manipulated and rigged.
Click to expand...




You're a fool.

Perhaps you heard about WWII, and the Holocaust.....it was in all the papers.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean.
> 
> The best you can do is lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no reference. Where is it. Do I take your word or Trump’s
Click to expand...



Seeing noting seems to be what you're best at.



I found your vid




Gee.....it even looks like your avi pic.....


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 365365
Click to expand...

I don't know, he doesn't look much like your avatar.  Do you also attend Nazi rallies?


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mind being 'in a minority.'
> 
> I'm not a weak sissy like you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist.  Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 365365
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, he doesn't look much like your avatar.  Do you also attend Nazi rallies?
Click to expand...




Don't give up the day job.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that the plebiscite result was manipulated and rigged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool.
> 
> Perhaps you heard about WWII, and the Holocaust.....it was in all the papers.
Click to expand...

You think 99.7% of Austrians *really *voted to join the Third Reich (the vote took place AFTER anschluss so Germans officials were present directly beside the voting booths and received the voting ballot by hand)? And you call me a fool?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also attend Nazi rallies?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give up the day job.
Click to expand...

No a great reply, you may be in need of bot reprogramming.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean.
> 
> The best you can do is lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no reference. Where is it. Do I take your word or Trump’s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing noting seems to be what you're best at.
> 
> 
> 
> I found your vid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....it even looks like your avi pic.....
Click to expand...

Don’t give up your day job. Are you talking about Darwinism and his theory of natural selection, or the term evolution ?  Cause frankly, I can’t tell anymore while you jump  from one falsehood to another.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al. 

One is ALL THEORY.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> When you resort to profanity, you pretty much admit you've lost the argument.


Nope, fuckface, evolutionary theory is still the prevailing theory, and you are still a joke, anonymously shouting into the void and getting laughed out of middle school science classrooms.. No matter how many times i call you fuckface.


----------



## Hollie

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
Click to expand...

Trying to help out political chic who needs to get out of the madrassah more often. Evolution; change in biological organisms over time, is a fact not in dispute among the relevant science community. 

The reason why fundamentalist Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Just for a laugh, ask the gutless OP which hypothesis she thinks is the correct one.

Watch her dance like a dung beetle on a bug zapper.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something I learned this month and evolutionists cannot explain how buffaloes, birds, bass, and bees travel together and somehow do not bump into each other.  For humans, it takes much work and practice for them to coordinate their movements together, but divergent and unrelated animals can do it by instinct.  The air force Blue Angels flying in formation takes much practice and work.  The same with putting together a massive song and dance routine for the super bowl.  Yet many animals can do coordinate their movements in an instant and somehow avoid colliding into each other.  This shows evolution does not happen as separate lines of animals can do it while the higher animals like humans can't.  We can't even move together when stopped at a traffic light and when it turns green.  Another failure for the science of atheism to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
Click to expand...


As usual, I knew you would not be able to counter.  It's direct evidence against evolution.  God gave animals a special instinct to be able to travel safely in groups and avoid group collision when traveling together as a group.  Military generals want their troops to be able to move like this, but it takes much practice and discipline.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just for a laugh, ask the gutless OP which hypothesis she thinks is the correct one.
> 
> Watch her dance like a dung beetle on a bug zapper.



She's got more brains than your stupidity which is incredibly hard to do since your stupidity is endless haha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for a laugh, ask the gutless OP which hypothesis she thinks is the correct one.
> 
> Watch her dance like a dung beetle on a bug zapper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's got more brains than your stupidity which is incredibly hard to do since your stupidity is endless haha.
Click to expand...

Haha, sure. Yet both of you morons would get laughed out of a middle school science classroom. So..uh...maybe you are fooling yourselves. Just maybe.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something I learned this month and evolutionists cannot explain how buffaloes, birds, bass, and bees travel together and somehow do not bump into each other.  For humans, it takes much work and practice for them to coordinate their movements together, but divergent and unrelated animals can do it by instinct.  The air force Blue Angels flying in formation takes much practice and work.  The same with putting together a massive song and dance routine for the super bowl.  Yet many animals can do coordinate their movements in an instant and somehow avoid colliding into each other.  This shows evolution does not happen as separate lines of animals can do it while the higher animals like humans can't.  We can't even move together when stopped at a traffic light and when it turns green.  Another failure for the science of atheism to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, I knew you would not be able to counter.  It's direct evidence against evolution.  God gave animals a special instinct to be able to travel safely in groups and avoid group collision when traveling together as a group.  Military generals want their troops to be able to move like this, but it takes much practice and discipline.
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theory about the gods giving animals special bump-proof abilities is fascinating. 

There are gods of thunder so are we to presume you also have gods of anti-bumping?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean.
> 
> The best you can do is lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no reference. Where is it. Do I take your word or Trump’s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing noting seems to be what you're best at.
> 
> 
> 
> I found your vid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....it even looks like your avi pic.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t give up your day job. Are you talking about Darwinism and his theory of natural selection, or the term evolution ?  Cause frankly, I can’t tell anymore while you jump  from one falsehood to another.
Click to expand...



You said he was right about some things......turns out you were as wrong as he was.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
Click to expand...



I understand your retreat from Darwinism.

You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.

About time.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.
Click to expand...

So what's the alternative theory? Anything?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the alternative theory? Anything?
Click to expand...




Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your retreat from Darwinism.
> 
> You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.
> 
> About time.
Click to expand...

Your appeals to hyper-religious loons at the Disco'tute is not competition for supported science


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the alternative theory? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?
Click to expand...

Evolution is fact. Why is it essential for hyper-religious loons to be ignorant?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof, "spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever. How do you rationalize that?
"*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
Click to expand...



"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
Click to expand...

It's a theory. 

So what about the rest of my post?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a theory.
> 
> So what about the rest of my post?
Click to expand...


Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
Click to expand...

When your phony ''quotes'' are plagiarized from fundie websites, it's clear what agenda you're pressing.

Odd that you would plagiarize material from Harun Yahya. Adnan Oktar is in some competition with fundie xtians.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a theory.
> 
> So what about the rest of my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that this is a lie?
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
Click to expand...

You post rests heavily on religious reasons being responsible for all the animals. And you have a paragraph on the Pope. 1+1=?

So basically, you're not going to address the rest of my post. And I know why, it's because I'm right with my assessments of your posts, and you're too much of an embarrassed weenie to stand up for what you believe and debate me on it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a theory.
> 
> So what about the rest of my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that this is a lie?
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post rests heavily on religious reasons being responsible for all the animals. And you have a paragraph on the Pope. 1+1=?
> 
> So basically, you're not going to address the rest of my post. And I know why, it's because I'm right with my assessments of your posts, and you're too much of an embarrassed weenie to stand up for what you believe and debate me on it.
Click to expand...


Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> “Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
> 
> 
> 
> That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *
> 
> 
> 
> Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
> Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> “The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> “Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
> 
> FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
> 
> As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
> 
> problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
> The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
> "*He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " *Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.
> 
> So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a theory.
> 
> So what about the rest of my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that this is a lie?
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post rests heavily on religious reasons being responsible for all the animals. And you have a paragraph on the Pope. 1+1=?
> 
> So basically, you're not going to address the rest of my post. And I know why, it's because I'm right with my assessments of your posts, and you're too much of an embarrassed weenie to stand up for what you believe and debate me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that this is a lie?
> 
> "So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "
> 
> Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?
> 
> No?
> 
> So, you're lying out of embarrassment?
Click to expand...

So I put you on TILT!


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the alternative theory? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is fact. Why is it essential for hyper-religious loons to be ignorant?
Click to expand...

To be clear, evolution in the general sense maybe factual simply because change is inevitable but the mechanism involved is all theory.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your retreat from Darwinism.
> 
> You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.
> 
> About time.
Click to expand...

Ha ha 
It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
> 
> Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
> 
> So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one changing the subject.
> 
> My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
> 
> So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
> 
> Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is there anything other than Darwinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the alternative theory? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is fact. Why is it essential for hyper-religious loons to be ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be clear, evolution in the general sense maybe factual simply because change is inevitable but the mechanism involved is all theory.
Click to expand...



We're not discussing 'evolution in the general sense,' we're forcing you to admit that Darwin, the specific, has tricked you all your life.

It was not until you saw my thread that you ever had to question the belief.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your retreat from Darwinism.
> 
> You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.
> 
> About time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha
> It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.
Click to expand...



And you have to admit it.

It must really hurt, being proven to be a life-long dunce.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your retreat from Darwinism.
> 
> You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.
> 
> About time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha
> It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to admit it.
> 
> It must really hurt, being proven to be a life-long dunce.
Click to expand...

TILT!Chic, you believe in an invisible friend who poofed everything into being. I guess you know about being a dunce... on TILT!


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “
> 
> In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
> Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts.  Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
> Look up the definition of natural selection ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?
> 
> 
> How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?
> 
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
> It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.
> 
> Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
> I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything  more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write soon.....I like slapping you around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_ of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are _not_ about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a _fact_. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", _American Biology Teacher_ vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a _fact_, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a _fact_ that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a _fact_ that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a _fact_ that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a _fact_ that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a _fact_that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
> The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term _theory_ is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain _how_life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
> - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that  change, DNA, natural selection et al.
> 
> One is ALL THEORY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your retreat from Darwinism.
> 
> You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.
> 
> About time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha
> It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to admit it.
> 
> It must really hurt, being proven to be a life-long dunce.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest you limit your participation to cutting and pasting your usual, phony “quotes”?

When you’re left to attempting the assembly of words into meaningful sentences, you’re rather lacking.


----------



## dblack

PoliticalChic said:


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


----------



## PoliticalChic

dblack said:


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




This is your support of Darwin's theory?


Pretty much on the same level as all of your other posts.


----------



## dblack

PoliticalChic said:


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


Nope. Miracles.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
Click to expand...


Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.



Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...

So which god and which “bible” are we talking about ?
Christ, Yahweh, Mohamed etc. ; which one is it ?
What makes you so different then an atheist ? There are six or seven basic religions, and I’ll bet you only believe in one and not the others. So really, an atheist only disbelieves  in one more.
So, what makes you so special ? You're just as much a non believer as an atheist !

Besides, the Catholic religion, which is Christian, did much to help develop the theory of evolution with studies by its monks and officially does allow  belief  in evolution. So, Christians have a least one traitor from their flock. Was Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Monk who worked in evolutionary theory and developed  ideas used today that ultimately helped feed millions a a wicked atheist ? You have no food on your table that doesn’t use genetics to grow more efficiently and safe. Are you a hypocrtite for eating those foods ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
Click to expand...

And you took and ran with a book of fables, some which allow you to bed down multiple wives and under aged children for your own satisfaction..Mormonism.. But evolutionary  theory has saved more lives then any book of fables.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
Click to expand...

“Many people” believe in a lot of fake shit. Look at Trump and Pense. The most reliable science comes from dedicate science Institutions where consensus is developed not individual people. There are no dedicated scientific institutions in the entire world that do not support basic theories in evolution as workable ideas to save and make our lives better. Everything from food sources to vaccines are developed using workable evolution ideas. Hypocrites like Mike Pense are struggling to live with that notion.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...

God didn’t write the Bible. Most passages are attributed to a bunch of old white guys’ drunk on wine and looking for a way to control the masses and get rich on the donations and ignorance of others.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...

Yah, but we have Kevin Bacon and the “ freedom from religion foundation” and the “six degrees of separation” which supports “social” evolution. So there !


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...

Religious extremists are rather confused. None of the gods ever provided advise to the men, most of who are unknown, who wrote the parts of the bibles. 

Fascinating conspiracy theory you have about the satan character offering advise in some antibible you have imagined.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
Click to expand...

Many people claim _evolution is a fact _because biological organisms change (or evolve) over time. So, yes. You might say the fact that biological organisms evolve is a reason to say that biological organisms evolve.


----------



## PoliticalChic

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...

 
Thank you.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
Click to expand...

SO WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THE DIFFERENT ANIMALS CAME FROM?


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact _because biological organisms change (or evolve) over time. So, yes. You might say the fact that biological organisms evolve is a reason to say that biological organisms evolve.
Click to expand...

It’s worthwhile making the distinction between the “mechanisms of evolution“ which is theory and the statement that it occurs at all,  which “ many say is fact” .

Near time evolution is hard to refute and is quite observable.....wisdom teeth, taller subsequent generations and guess what, the effects of polio and small pox vaccine on the general population.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science does not ''back up'' the bibles. That's a bumper sticker slogan you dump into threads and never support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it does because of the scientific method which you were informed was created by a creationist.  There is also evidence.  We also know that what God advised people to do was always correct.  Thus, what the evolutionists claim as fact and that they have a mountain of evidence, we have studied and discussed already and they are lies.  Some are still theories, but probably wrong because it's the science of atheism.  It really is amazing how much the science of atheism has gotten into our higher educational systems and it has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  Your science is based on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationers did not invent the scientific method.
> 
> There is no science of atheism.
> 
> Your gods have never offered advise to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you are wrong in every statement.  We have Sir Francis Bacon, what you believe is no God and your science is based on no creation happening as it is religious belief.  That's wrong.  It's science based on creation.  God provided his advice in the Bible just as Satan provided his advice in his Antibible (Evolution).
Click to expand...

Examples of recent evolution









						7 strange and surprising ways that humans have recently evolved
					

Evolution is very much still happening today — and it's happening to us.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




Drinking milk as adults. Drinking milk is one of the defining traits of mammals, but humans are …
Disease resistance. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest — and a big part of …
Blue eyes. Blue eyes are another recent-evolved trait and scientists have determined it came …
High-altitude breathing. Tibetans live in one of the least hospitable, and therefore one of the …


----------



## Hollie

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact _because biological organisms change (or evolve) over time. So, yes. You might say the fact that biological organisms evolve is a reason to say that biological organisms evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s worthwhile making the distinction between the “mechanisms of evolution“ which is theory and the statement that it occurs at all,  which “ many say is fact” .
> 
> Near time evolution is hard to refute and is quite observable.....wisdom teeth, taller subsequent generations and guess what, the effects of polio and small pox vaccine on the general population.
Click to expand...

I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty.  In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest. 

Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included. 

Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.

"The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact _because biological organisms change (or evolve) over time. So, yes. You might say the fact that biological organisms evolve is a reason to say that biological organisms evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s worthwhile making the distinction between the “mechanisms of evolution“ which is theory and the statement that it occurs at all,  which “ many say is fact” .
> 
> Near time evolution is hard to refute and is quite observable.....wisdom teeth, taller subsequent generations and guess what, the effects of polio and small pox vaccine on the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty.  In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
Click to expand...

The idea that biology changes and evolves, I get it. Science theory as to how it occurs is not a bad thing. In order for science to be accurate, it  must NEVER be satisfied that it’s  discoveries are factual. That’s what we leave to religious fanatics. Science is filled with great discoveries that were only true ( factual) given the limited evidence they had at the time. That’s why we have theories. Show me one organism that changes outside of its genetic make up, or one that contains no dna and evolution   as we know it ceases to exist. 

Without quantum theory which literally  debunks Newtonian physics you wouldn’t have a cell phone. Still Newtonian physics though not factual at all outside of  the evidence used to define it is still great  for  designing golf clubs.

Imo, critical thinking is enhanced if we are willing to look beyond what one might say is a fact. 
We do this all the time in math and other sciences.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact_, so you're lying. You can say it's a theory, but there is no evidence for it (except natural selection and your scientists took that and ran with it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people claim _evolution is a fact _because biological organisms change (or evolve) over time. So, yes. You might say the fact that biological organisms evolve is a reason to say that biological organisms evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s worthwhile making the distinction between the “mechanisms of evolution“ which is theory and the statement that it occurs at all,  which “ many say is fact” .
> 
> Near time evolution is hard to refute and is quite observable.....wisdom teeth, taller subsequent generations and guess what, the effects of polio and small pox vaccine on the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty.  In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
Click to expand...

I think some who think we have all the answers and think everything is factual now, forget that some had the same  ideas centuries ago...


----------



## ChemEngineer

On the huge fraud of *Climate Change*, I just added these two irrefutable facts to








						theglobalwarmingfraud
					






					TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
				





According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the highest registered air temperature on Earth was *56.7 °C* (*134.1 °F*) in Furnace Creek Ranch, California, located in the Death Valley desert in the United States, on 10 July 1913...


The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −*89.2 °C* (−*128.6 °F*; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983 by ground measurements.


So the scary claims by AlGorians of weather extremes becoming more and more common today are baseless, clearly.


----------



## Dagosa

ChemEngineer said:


> On the huge fraud of *Climate Change*, I just added these two irrefutable facts to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theglobalwarmingfraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the highest registered air temperature on Earth was *56.7 °C* (*134.1 °F*) in Furnace Creek Ranch, California, located in the Death Valley desert in the United States, on 10 July 1913...
> 
> 
> The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −*89.2 °C* (−*128.6 °F*; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983 by ground measurements.
> 
> 
> So the scary claims by AlGorians of weather extremes becoming more and more common today are baseless, clearly.


Jon Minnoch was the heaviest man ever recorded at 1400 lbs.  He died in early
1980s when the average American male   weighed 183 lbs. 

Decades later the average male weighs 194lbs 

Gee how can that be ? Jon is no longer around ? Dah.

I also didn’t know Antartica   is in California, 

Anymore fake news mr engineer ? Toot, toot.

Extreme weather events explained.








						Climate change is not only influencing extreme weather events, it's causing them
					

Extreme weather events that spanned the globe in 2017 have been directly linked to -- and in some cases were even caused by -- continued warming of the planet via human influence through greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> On the huge fraud of *Climate Change*, I just added these two irrefutable facts to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theglobalwarmingfraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the highest registered air temperature on Earth was *56.7 °C* (*134.1 °F*) in Furnace Creek Ranch, California, located in the Death Valley desert in the United States, on 10 July 1913...
> 
> 
> The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −*89.2 °C* (−*128.6 °F*; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983 by ground measurements.
> 
> 
> So the scary claims by AlGorians of weather extremes becoming more and more common today are baseless, clearly.


Such silly, bellicose pronouncements as “irrefutable facts” (_irrefutable phacts™️_) that consist of two pieces of data provide nothing more that two pieces of data. Of course, if your data had been taken from Answers in Genesis as opposed to someone’s personal blog, that would have added some real melodrama to your two pieces of data.

Really, it would have.


----------



## Dagosa

ChemEngineer said:


> On the huge fraud of *Climate Change*, I just added these two irrefutable facts to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theglobalwarmingfraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the highest registered air temperature on Earth was *56.7 °C* (*134.1 °F*) in Furnace Creek Ranch, California, located in the Death Valley desert in the United States, on 10 July 1913...
> 
> 
> The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −*89.2 °C* (−*128.6 °F*; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983 by ground measurements.
> 
> 
> So the scary claims by AlGorians of weather extremes becoming more and more common today are baseless, clearly.


“So the scary claims by AlGorians of weather extremes becoming more and more common today are baseless, clearly.“
Btw, why would you claim that just temperature extremes  in two different places is the same as weather extremes in the same places.

Here is a more realistic statement of extremes because of climate change.  Same places, not just temperature. 

“In recent years, a higher percentage of precipitation in the United States has come in the form of intense single-day events. The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly steady between 1910 and the 1980s but has risen substantially since then. Nationwide, nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990. The occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals (as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has also increased “


----------



## initforme

1) Cheerios are toxic.  They have glyophosate(round up) in them.  A carcinogen.  Do NOT feed them to kids.  
2). Evolution is hard to envision.  If you have faith in Christ and the Bible that can explain how we got here although I doubt it was a simple bam we are here.  Had to be more of a process.


----------



## initforme

There indeed are mutations ad the US is full of cancers easily linked to chemicals in our environment put in it by our lovely corporations who tell us lies like it costs more to be environmentally friendly.


----------



## Dagosa

initforme said:


> 1) Cheerios are toxic.  They have glyophosate(round up) in them.  A carcinogen.  Do NOT feed them to kids.
> 2). Evolution is hard to envision.  If you have faith in Christ and the Bible that can explain how we got here although I doubt it was a simple bam we are here.  Had to be more of a process.


“ Evolution is hard to envision.  If you have faith in Christ and the Bible that can explain how we got here although I doubt it was a simple bam we are here.  Had to be more of a process.”
Hard to envision ? Well, you do need a little science and a realization that it’s used in many phases  of your. life, from the food you eat to the medical care you get. If eating and getting medical care is not important to you, by all means, let the Bible dictate your foods and cancer and all healthcare treatment., you don’t seem to get, you’re immersed in the science of evolutional already whether you like or know it.


----------



## Dagosa

initforme said:


> 1) Cheerios are toxic.  They have glyophosate(round up) in them.  A carcinogen.  Do NOT feed them to kids.
> 2). Evolution is hard to envision.  If you have faith in Christ and the Bible that can explain how we got here although I doubt it was a simple bam we are here.  Had to be more of a process.


There are a half dozen other religions. Why do you think Christianity knows more then any-other about creationism.,


----------



## Dagosa

initforme said:


> There indeed are mutations ad the US is full of cancers easily linked to chemicals in our environment put in it by our lovely corporations who tell us lies like it costs more to be environmentally friendly.


Well, that depends. Better foods Without  carcinogens are definitely more expensive but on the other end, obesity related diabetes from foods is our nations biggest healthcare expense.


----------



## initforme

It's worth the extra $ to avoid the carcinogens.  American diets are high in sugar, sodium, and other unhealthy chemicals yet we allow this.  Why?


----------



## initforme

Dag I do agree diabetes is a problem.Again diet is the culprit.


----------



## Dagosa

initforme said:


> It's worth the extra $ to avoid the carcinogens.  American diets are high in sugar, sodium, and other unhealthy chemicals yet we allow this.  Why?


Food is supplied through interstate commerce on a national level. Only the federal govt can address this problem . Countries with universal healthcare where the central gov. is involved, can take a more active role.
We did it with tobacco and other cancer causing substances. Now, profit means more then public safety.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> So which god and which “bible” are we talking about ?
> Christ, Yahweh, Mohamed etc. ; which one is it ?
> What makes you so different then an atheist ? There are six or seven basic religions, and I’ll bet you only believe in one and not the others. So really, an atheist only disbelieves  in one more.
> So, what makes you so special ? You're just as much a non believer as an atheist !
> 
> Besides, the Catholic religion, which is Christian, did much to help develop the theory of evolution with studies by its monks and officially does allow  belief  in evolution. So, Christians have a least one traitor from their flock. Was Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Monk who worked in evolutionary theory and developed  ideas used today that ultimately helped feed millions a a wicked atheist ? You have no food on your table that doesn’t use genetics to grow more efficiently and safe. Are you a hypocrtite for eating those foods ?



The one and only true God of the Trinity.  You need to repent for the end is near.  John 3:16

If you can't figure it out, then it is what it is.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Examples of recent evolution



It's just fairy tales for atheists who believe in science of the atheists.



Dagosa said:


> Extreme weather events explained.



Liberal lies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty. In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.



You can't prove anything you said.  The continental drift theory was discovered by creation scientists Antonio Snider (first proposed in 1859 based on  esis 1:9-10 ) and the work of Alfred Wegener as a pioneer in plate tectonics.

Then, more lies from Hollie.

"The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves. He said in an interview with Daniel Robinson that he had not suffered any persecution from his colleagues so far, but based on what he knows from others’ testimonies, Gelernter warned that “they will destroy you” if you leave the Darwin camp. That’s because it’s a religion to them, he added. Nevertheless, there have been others, as Evolution News reports today: Wolfe, Shapiro, Prager, Nagel among them. Matti Leisola is another. Will a critical mass be reached that will make it easier for others to jump ship? Maybe if the Darwin ship keeps taking on water and is about to sink scientifically, others will rush to the lifeboats. "





__





						Darwin Got It Wrong – CEH
					






					crev.info


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty. In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove anything you said.  The continental drift theory was discovered by creation scientists Antonio Snider (first proposed in 1859 based on  esis 1:9-10 ) and the work of Alfred Wegener as a pioneer in plate tectonics.
> 
> Then, more lies from Hollie.
> 
> "The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves. He said in an interview with Daniel Robinson that he had not suffered any persecution from his colleagues so far, but based on what he knows from others’ testimonies, Gelernter warned that “they will destroy you” if you leave the Darwin camp. That’s because it’s a religion to them, he added. Nevertheless, there have been others, as Evolution News reports today: Wolfe, Shapiro, Prager, Nagel among them. Matti Leisola is another. Will a critical mass be reached that will make it easier for others to jump ship? Maybe if the Darwin ship keeps taking on water and is about to sink scientifically, others will rush to the lifeboats. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin Got It Wrong – CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crev.info
Click to expand...


Why would I or anyone else have any use for silly cutting and pasting from another fundie Christian ministry?





__





						One moment, please...
					





					creationsafaris.com
				





Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God’s plan for their lives, and God’s plan for the world, as revealed in the Bible:

“Fear God, and give glory to Him… and worship Him who made heaven and earth” (Revelation 14:7).

“Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

“We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God [i.e., the Master] prepared beforehand [i.e., planned] that we should walk in them” ( Ephesians 2:10).

“The works of the Lord are great; studied by all who have pleasure in them” (Psalm 111:2).


Master Plan Association is nothing more than Answers in Genesis _lite_


The Darwin flotilla is sailing. 

Silly Ark fables? Well, that fable sank like a boat anchor.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which god and which “bible” are we talking about ?
> Christ, Yahweh, Mohamed etc. ; which one is it ?
> What makes you so different then an atheist ? There are six or seven basic religions, and I’ll bet you only believe in one and not the others. So really, an atheist only disbelieves  in one more.
> So, what makes you so special ? You're just as much a non believer as an atheist !
> 
> Besides, the Catholic religion, which is Christian, did much to help develop the theory of evolution with studies by its monks and officially does allow  belief  in evolution. So, Christians have a least one traitor from their flock. Was Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Monk who worked in evolutionary theory and developed  ideas used today that ultimately helped feed millions a a wicked atheist ? You have no food on your table that doesn’t use genetics to grow more efficiently and safe. Are you a hypocrtite for eating those foods ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one and only true God of the Trinity.  You need to repent for the end is near.  John 3:16
> 
> If you can't figure it out, then it is what it is.
Click to expand...

The trinity ? Sounds like Catholicism which has officially accepted that followers can be believe  in evolution.
Seems reasonable considering Gregor Mendel  

The end is near....what are you promoting now, the rapture ?,


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Examples of recent evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just fairy tales for atheists who believe in science of the atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme weather events explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal lies.
Click to expand...

So you don’t trust doctors ? They all use that fking liberal science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

A Crinoid fossil from 325 mya:


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty. In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove anything you said.  The continental drift theory was discovered by creation scientists Antonio Snider (first proposed in 1859 based on  esis 1:9-10 ) and the work of Alfred Wegener as a pioneer in plate tectonics.
> 
> Then, more lies from Hollie.
> 
> "The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves. He said in an interview with Daniel Robinson that he had not suffered any persecution from his colleagues so far, but based on what he knows from others’ testimonies, Gelernter warned that “they will destroy you” if you leave the Darwin camp. That’s because it’s a religion to them, he added. Nevertheless, there have been others, as Evolution News reports today: Wolfe, Shapiro, Prager, Nagel among them. Matti Leisola is another. Will a critical mass be reached that will make it easier for others to jump ship? Maybe if the Darwin ship keeps taking on water and is about to sink scientifically, others will rush to the lifeboats. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin Got It Wrong – CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crev.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I or anyone else have any use for silly cutting and pasting from another fundie Christian ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One moment, please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creationsafaris.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God’s plan for their lives, and God’s plan for the world, as revealed in the Bible:
> 
> “Fear God, and give glory to Him… and worship Him who made heaven and earth” (Revelation 14:7).
> 
> “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
> 
> “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God [i.e., the Master] prepared beforehand [i.e., planned] that we should walk in them” ( Ephesians 2:10).
> 
> “The works of the Lord are great; studied by all who have pleasure in them” (Psalm 111:2).
> 
> 
> Master Plan Association is nothing more than Answers in Genesis _lite_
> 
> 
> The Darwin flotilla is sailing.
> 
> Silly Ark fables? Well, that fable sank like a boat anchor.
Click to expand...


It's the science of atheism vs the creation science and ID.  It's one science versus another.  It's one religions versus another and science philosophy.

When you and the atheists won't accept the supernatural of life and the natural coexisting with each other daily, i.e. everything is natural, then this is what you get  foo.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which god and which “bible” are we talking about ?
> Christ, Yahweh, Mohamed etc. ; which one is it ?
> What makes you so different then an atheist ? There are six or seven basic religions, and I’ll bet you only believe in one and not the others. So really, an atheist only disbelieves  in one more.
> So, what makes you so special ? You're just as much a non believer as an atheist !
> 
> Besides, the Catholic religion, which is Christian, did much to help develop the theory of evolution with studies by its monks and officially does allow  belief  in evolution. So, Christians have a least one traitor from their flock. Was Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Monk who worked in evolutionary theory and developed  ideas used today that ultimately helped feed millions a a wicked atheist ? You have no food on your table that doesn’t use genetics to grow more efficiently and safe. Are you a hypocrtite for eating those foods ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one and only true God of the Trinity.  You need to repent for the end is near.  John 3:16
> 
> If you can't figure it out, then it is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trinity ? Sounds like Catholicism which has officially accepted that followers can be believe  in evolution.
> Seems reasonable considering Gregor Mendel
> 
> The end is near....what are you promoting now, the rapture ?,
Click to expand...


This is the S&T forum, but yet you ask about religion and want to talk about religion.  Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.  The main one people have come to believe is the science of atheism where there is no God in the universe, i.e. no creation.  Thus, we get wrong theories being accepted like big bang and evolution.

What I am promoting is the science of atheism is fake science.  We get fossils and rocks that are millions of years old when common sense tells us they don't last that long due to weathering, chemical processes, and pressures.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty. In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove anything you said.  The continental drift theory was discovered by creation scientists Antonio Snider (first proposed in 1859 based on  esis 1:9-10 ) and the work of Alfred Wegener as a pioneer in plate tectonics.
> 
> Then, more lies from Hollie.
> 
> "The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves. He said in an interview with Daniel Robinson that he had not suffered any persecution from his colleagues so far, but based on what he knows from others’ testimonies, Gelernter warned that “they will destroy you” if you leave the Darwin camp. That’s because it’s a religion to them, he added. Nevertheless, there have been others, as Evolution News reports today: Wolfe, Shapiro, Prager, Nagel among them. Matti Leisola is another. Will a critical mass be reached that will make it easier for others to jump ship? Maybe if the Darwin ship keeps taking on water and is about to sink scientifically, others will rush to the lifeboats. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin Got It Wrong – CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crev.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I or anyone else have any use for silly cutting and pasting from another fundie Christian ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One moment, please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creationsafaris.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God’s plan for their lives, and God’s plan for the world, as revealed in the Bible:
> 
> “Fear God, and give glory to Him… and worship Him who made heaven and earth” (Revelation 14:7).
> 
> “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
> 
> “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God [i.e., the Master] prepared beforehand [i.e., planned] that we should walk in them” ( Ephesians 2:10).
> 
> “The works of the Lord are great; studied by all who have pleasure in them” (Psalm 111:2).
> 
> 
> Master Plan Association is nothing more than Answers in Genesis _lite_
> 
> 
> The Darwin flotilla is sailing.
> 
> Silly Ark fables? Well, that fable sank like a boat anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the science of atheism vs the creation science and ID.  It's one science versus another.  It's one religions versus another and science philosophy.
> 
> When you and the atheists won't accept the supernatural of life and the natural coexisting with each other daily, i.e. everything is natural, then this is what you get  foo.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the science of atheism, creation or anything else that has not been defined as a scientific endeavor. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Science is a supported method of gathering evidence then coming to consensus conclusions which adds  knowledge. 

The Bible isn’t evidence, your opinion is not evidence so neither has a place in the scientific method. Science does not try to prove or disprove gods. 

Why bother. At least one of your gods of the trinity religions accepts their followers to work in evolution. Why the fk can’t you.  .


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty. In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove anything you said.  The continental drift theory was discovered by creation scientists Antonio Snider (first proposed in 1859 based on  esis 1:9-10 ) and the work of Alfred Wegener as a pioneer in plate tectonics.
> 
> Then, more lies from Hollie.
> 
> "The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves. He said in an interview with Daniel Robinson that he had not suffered any persecution from his colleagues so far, but based on what he knows from others’ testimonies, Gelernter warned that “they will destroy you” if you leave the Darwin camp. That’s because it’s a religion to them, he added. Nevertheless, there have been others, as Evolution News reports today: Wolfe, Shapiro, Prager, Nagel among them. Matti Leisola is another. Will a critical mass be reached that will make it easier for others to jump ship? Maybe if the Darwin ship keeps taking on water and is about to sink scientifically, others will rush to the lifeboats. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin Got It Wrong – CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crev.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I or anyone else have any use for silly cutting and pasting from another fundie Christian ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One moment, please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creationsafaris.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God’s plan for their lives, and God’s plan for the world, as revealed in the Bible:
> 
> “Fear God, and give glory to Him… and worship Him who made heaven and earth” (Revelation 14:7).
> 
> “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
> 
> “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God [i.e., the Master] prepared beforehand [i.e., planned] that we should walk in them” ( Ephesians 2:10).
> 
> “The works of the Lord are great; studied by all who have pleasure in them” (Psalm 111:2).
> 
> 
> Master Plan Association is nothing more than Answers in Genesis _lite_
> 
> 
> The Darwin flotilla is sailing.
> 
> Silly Ark fables? Well, that fable sank like a boat anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the science of atheism vs the creation science and ID.  It's one science versus another.  It's one religions versus another and science philosophy.
> 
> When you and the atheists won't accept the supernatural of life and the natural coexisting with each other daily, i.e. everything is natural, then this is what you get  foo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as the science of atheism, creation or anything else that has not been defined as a scientific endeavor. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Science is a supported method of gathering evidence then coming to consensus conclusions which adds  knowledge.
> 
> The Bible isn’t evidence, your opinion is not evidence so neither has a place in the scientific method. Science does not try to prove or disprove gods.
> 
> Why bother. At least one of your gods of the trinity religions accepts their followers to work in evolution. Why the fk can’t you.  .
Click to expand...


Now, you resort to lying.  Where is God in terms of creation as per Genesis in today's science?  The God theory or creation theory has been systematically eliminated from science as an assumption.  Thus, we have the science of atheism being taught in schools today.  It has become the norm for higher education and thus we have fake science.  There is no abiogenesis.  There is no big bang.  There are no millions and billions of years.  Darwin just explained how theory of evolution worked and he was wrong.  Darwinism just led to black and Jew genocide.  That is fact.

I argue facts, reasoning, historical truths, and science while you just argue religion.  Where is the science of atheism?  It's what you wrongly believe in.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A Crinoid fossil from 325 mya:
> 
> View attachment 366255



I learned a new term today.  Are you a covidiot?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Darwin just explained how theory of evolution worked and he was wrong. Darwinism just led to black and Jew genocide. That is fact.


You’re a science illiterate. Theories are neither right or wrong. That’s why they are called theories. Darwin with the evidence he Had  at the time which did not include dna evidence, developed acceptable ideas many of which is still used today. When you plant your boneY  ass down at the table and eat foods that were developed using the work of scientist in this area, or wait for your little vaccine to save your ass of an affliction, you are depending upon Darwin and Gregor Mendel and a plethora of others. So Darwin is wrong and we use many of his ideas now to save lives ? Foolish on your part.
Geesus....go read a biology book.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose for the benefit of the religious extremists it's worth doubling down on the reality that science does not achieve absolute certainty. In the case of biological evolution however, we have overwhelming amounts of data from diverse fields. Supportable evidence exists from complimentary science disciplines with each new piece of evidence testing the rest.
> 
> Even the global distribution of species is consistent with evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, for one exampke, and the ''exceptions to the rule'' are explained by continental drift. A truth confirmed by Darwin's study of the Galapagos is that remote islands often have species (groups of species), that are very diverse in physical appearance and habits related to survival but closely related genetically. That kind of species diversity consistency is still true when the distribution of fossil species is included.
> 
> Sadly, science, fact and critical thinking is discarded by the usual suspect religious extremists represented in these forums with the insistence that all of existence is shoe-horned into a 6,000 year old planet, that an Ark sailed the seas and that incestuous, familial relations after the Ark reached Port are responsible for human repopulation of the planet.
> 
> "The Gawds Did It'' answers every question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove anything you said.  The continental drift theory was discovered by creation scientists Antonio Snider (first proposed in 1859 based on  esis 1:9-10 ) and the work of Alfred Wegener as a pioneer in plate tectonics.
> 
> Then, more lies from Hollie.
> 
> "The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves. He said in an interview with Daniel Robinson that he had not suffered any persecution from his colleagues so far, but based on what he knows from others’ testimonies, Gelernter warned that “they will destroy you” if you leave the Darwin camp. That’s because it’s a religion to them, he added. Nevertheless, there have been others, as Evolution News reports today: Wolfe, Shapiro, Prager, Nagel among them. Matti Leisola is another. Will a critical mass be reached that will make it easier for others to jump ship? Maybe if the Darwin ship keeps taking on water and is about to sink scientifically, others will rush to the lifeboats. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin Got It Wrong – CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crev.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I or anyone else have any use for silly cutting and pasting from another fundie Christian ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One moment, please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creationsafaris.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God’s plan for their lives, and God’s plan for the world, as revealed in the Bible:
> 
> “Fear God, and give glory to Him… and worship Him who made heaven and earth” (Revelation 14:7).
> 
> “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
> 
> “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God [i.e., the Master] prepared beforehand [i.e., planned] that we should walk in them” ( Ephesians 2:10).
> 
> “The works of the Lord are great; studied by all who have pleasure in them” (Psalm 111:2).
> 
> 
> Master Plan Association is nothing more than Answers in Genesis _lite_
> 
> 
> The Darwin flotilla is sailing.
> 
> Silly Ark fables? Well, that fable sank like a boat anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the science of atheism vs the creation science and ID.  It's one science versus another.  It's one religions versus another and science philosophy.
> 
> When you and the atheists won't accept the supernatural of life and the natural coexisting with each other daily, i.e. everything is natural, then this is what you get  foo.
Click to expand...

It seems you don't understand the terms you use. There is no ''science of atheism''. For that matter, there is no creationer science. Creationer science is simply fundie christianity hiding under a burqa of a bumper sticker slogan. 

ID'iot creationers have invented a new bumper sticker called 'intelligent design'' as a new label for fundie christianity. The industry of xtian extremists have simply added a different label to creationism. As the bankruptcy of ''creationer science" beccane increasingly recognized, and as the courts relentlessly threw out attempts by the creationer religious extremists to force Christianity into public schools, a new bumper sticker was invented; ID'iot crestionism.  The Dover trial quickly put that nonsense to rest.

As to not accepting the supernatural of life, what supernaturalism has anyone rejected? What supernatural events have occurred? Show me some cause and effect that can be attributed to supernaturalism. 

You seem unable to comprehend that in the natural world, there is no mechanism to test for, measure or establish the existence if the supernatural.  

Identify one, single, verifiable supernatural event. 

Just one. The gawds command you. 

Thanks.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Where is God in terms of creation as per Genesis


Oh geesus. Don’t use the Bible as evidence. It was written by drunk on wine old farts  trying to control the behavior of the masses.....


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.


Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
Click to expand...

Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
Click to expand...

There is no good reason to have faith and complete trust  in someone or something. .its a pretty sad  Commentary on your own intellect .


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
Click to expand...

You do it everyday.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
Click to expand...

 Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.
Click to expand...

. Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.


This is why faith is such a fallacy. “ complete trust in someone or something “ is the worse  thing anyone other then a child or anyone devoid of reason  could possibly do. There is no good reason to do it if there are anyother options.....and there are in the vast majority of decisions we make.
We aren’t all soldiers and have free will. Having faith is giving up free will.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin just explained how theory of evolution worked and he was wrong. Darwinism just led to black and Jew genocide. That is fact.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate. Theories are neither right or wrong. That’s why they are called theories. Darwin with the evidence he Had  at the time which did not include dna evidence, developed acceptable ideas many of which is still used today. When you plant your boneY  ass down at the table and eat foods that were developed using the work of scientist in this area, or wait for your little vaccine to save your ass of an affliction, you are depending upon Darwin and Gregor Mendel and a plethora of others. So Darwin is wrong and we use many of his ideas now to save lives ? Foolish on your part.
> Geesus....go read a biology book.
Click to expand...


Haha.  I think most of us, if not all, know about theories.  Theories can be demonstrated to be wrong and we discard them.  We see that with evolution, but people continue to believe in it.  What about 5G?  It causes COVID-19, cancer, asthma, memory defects, obesity, and more.  Crackpot?

I mentioned racist Darwin.  His family was like that.  Darwinism led to pseudoscientific racism such as social Darwinism with whites at the top, blacks on the bottom, and against Jews with the Holocaust and Hitler.  He called it survival of the _fittest_.  Instead, it was about survival mechanisms of natural selection.  Darwin borrowed from social Darwinist Herbert Spencer to complete his racist theory.  Furthermore, Darwin's cousin, Frances Galton came up with eugenics from his cousin's ideas.  Hitler creamed in his pants over this for his white supremacy.  This didn't even occur to you.  That's some big dumb scientific illiterate.
_You_ can depend on Darwin. The farker flunked out of medical school. You must mean Christian Father Gregor Mendel, professor of Genetics and Medicine at Harvard Medical School, to thank for the medical advances. Darwin was a racist POS. I think he is screaming 24/7 in pain and suffering in Hades as scientists are held to a higher standard by God.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> There is no good reason to have faith and complete trust in someone or something. .its a pretty sad Commentary on your own intellect .



The atheists have faith and complete trust in evolution and Darwinism even though we do not have any scientific evidence.  Nothing but weak fossil evidence for humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Instead, they ignore all the marine fossils found on top of mountain peaks due to the global flood.  Most of the fossils are marine fossils.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.



Haha.  You crack me up.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> We see that with evolution, but people continue to believe in it.


You really don’t get it do you ? Evolution study has rewarded us a plethora of ideas that are used In vaccines, food manufacturing, a host of other biological fields  and even AGW verification. It’s value doesn’t just lie in making the religious right squirm. If evolution wasn’t valid, none of this would be possible. 
God dint cure small pox, the application of evolutional Theories did. Read a biology book.
.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The atheists have faith and complete trust in evolution and Darwinism even though we do not have any scientific evidence.


Another uninformed remark. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. No matter how many times we include the likes of Gregor Mendel and other religious peoples, the right gets a brain cramp and pretends they never existed.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  You crack me up.
Click to expand...

Ha ha.
You actually think a green light guarantees total confidence ? That’s funnier.
You’ve never been to Boston. Traffic lights are just suggestions.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.
Click to expand...

Good for you.  That still doesn't mean you don't trust that the guy sitting at the light doesn't floor it.  You can be looking both ways but that doesn't stop a car from pulling out in front of you. 

Do you have complete trust that your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or partner in life isn't cheating on you?  Or do you have them followed around?


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why faith is such a fallacy. “ complete trust in someone or something “ is the worse  thing anyone other then a child or anyone devoid of reason  could possibly do. There is no good reason to do it if there are anyother options.....and there are in the vast majority of decisions we make.
> We aren’t all soldiers and have free will. Having faith is giving up free will.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.  Besides you do it every day anyway.  So there's that.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  That still doesn't mean you don't trust that the guy sitting at the light doesn't floor it.  You can be looking both ways but that doesn't stop a car from pulling out in front of you.
> 
> Do you have complete trust that your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or partner in life isn't cheating on you?  Or do you have them followed around?
Click to expand...

Not driving a car. Besides, you’re talking about trust and changing the subject. That’s not blind faith. You trust Trump will tell you the truth ? Case closed. 

Instead of faith in “ someone”, we should look for evidence from many, called institutions, then you look for consensus among the institutions. 

Essentially you are arguing that faith in one person  is more reliable then the consensus work if many. That’s stupid. We don’t run the military, or most  successful corporations that way. Dumb idea. 
 Our greatest achievements of man kind were by consensus science.  To argue against it is to argue fOR FASCISM


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  That still doesn't mean you don't trust that the guy sitting at the light doesn't floor it.  You can be looking both ways but that doesn't stop a car from pulling out in front of you.
> 
> Do you have complete trust that your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or partner in life isn't cheating on you?  Or do you have them followed around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not driving a car. Besides, you’re talking about trust and changing the subject. That’s not blind faith. You trust Trump will tell you the truth ? Case closed.
> 
> Instead of faith in “ someone”, we should look for evidence from many, called institutions, then you look for consensus among the institutions.
> 
> Essentially you are arguing that faith in one person  is more reliable then the consensus work if many. That’s stupid. We don’t run the military, or most  successful corporations that way. Dumb idea.
> Our greatest achievements of man kind were by consensus science.  To argue against it is to argue fOR FASCISM
Click to expand...

Faith and trust go hand in hand.  You have faith because you trust.  The very definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.

I am arguing that you put complete trust (AKA faith) in all kinds of things that you never even think about.  You scoffing at faith is illogical.  Clearly you have faith that your significant other is faithful.  But hey, if you want to argue that being FAITHful to your spouse has nothing to do with FAITH., go right ahead.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  That still doesn't mean you don't trust that the guy sitting at the light doesn't floor it.  You can be looking both ways but that doesn't stop a car from pulling out in front of you.
> 
> Do you have complete trust that your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or partner in life isn't cheating on you?  Or do you have them followed around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not driving a car. Besides, you’re talking about trust and changing the subject. That’s not blind faith. You trust Trump will tell you the truth ? Case closed.
> 
> Instead of faith in “ someone”, we should look for evidence from many, called institutions, then you look for consensus among the institutions.
> 
> Essentially you are arguing that faith in one person  is more reliable then the consensus work if many. That’s stupid. We don’t run the military, or most  successful corporations that way. Dumb idea.
> Our greatest achievements of man kind were by consensus science.  To argue against it is to argue fOR FASCISM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith and trust go hand in hand.  You have faith because you trust.  The very definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.
> 
> I am arguing that you put complete trust (AKA faith) in all kinds of things that you never even think about.  You scoffing at faith is illogical.  Clearly you have faith that your significant other is faithful.  But hey, if you want to argue that being FAITHful to your spouse has nothing to do with FAITH., go right ahead.
Click to expand...

And I’m still waiting for you to tell me who and what they are. 
Your arguing that faith in one person is better then seeking  answers from many different dedicated sources that agree , that’s hysterical. You can’t be serious. You are delirious. We have 3400 universities that all agree on basics of AGW.....but In Trump  We trust ? Go for it. Be the village idiot


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today our science is based on our religion, so this is what has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappola. It’s either science or religion. Don’t mix up the two. Religion by definition is based on faith which is the absence of evidence. Science depends upon evidence, religion depends upon a good story line made to instill fear and control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually... the definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I don't know anyone who puts complete trust in something or someone without good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no good reason to have faith in someone or something. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do it everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Never do. I’m not a child anymore. That’s what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every time you drive through an intersection on a green light you have faith that someone isn't going to T-bone you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Only fools and children assume that a green light gives you safety. I slow down and look both ways on every green light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  That still doesn't mean you don't trust that the guy sitting at the light doesn't floor it.  You can be looking both ways but that doesn't stop a car from pulling out in front of you.
> 
> Do you have complete trust that your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or partner in life isn't cheating on you?  Or do you have them followed around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not driving a car. Besides, you’re talking about trust and changing the subject. That’s not blind faith. You trust Trump will tell you the truth ? Case closed.
> 
> Instead of faith in “ someone”, we should look for evidence from many, called institutions, then you look for consensus among the institutions.
> 
> Essentially you are arguing that faith in one person  is more reliable then the consensus work if many. That’s stupid. We don’t run the military, or most  successful corporations that way. Dumb idea.
> Our greatest achievements of man kind were by consensus science.  To argue against it is to argue fOR FASCISM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith and trust go hand in hand.  You have faith because you trust.  The very definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.
> 
> I am arguing that you put complete trust (AKA faith) in all kinds of things that you never even think about.  You scoffing at faith is illogical.  Clearly you have faith that your significant other is faithful.  But hey, if you want to argue that being FAITHful to your spouse has nothing to do with FAITH., go right ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I’m still waiting for you to tell me who and what they are.
> Your arguing that faith in one person is better then seeking  answers from many different dedicated sources that agree , that’s hysterical. You can’t be serious. You are delirious. We have 3400 universities that all agree on basics of AGW.....but In Trump  We trust ? Go for it. Be the village idiot
Click to expand...

Try to stay focused.

So, do you have complete trust (aka faith) in your spouse?

Go ahead and say no.  I dare you.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You really don’t get it do you ? Evolution study has rewarded us a plethora of ideas that are used In vaccines, food manufacturing, a host of other biological fields and even AGW verification. It’s value doesn’t just lie in making the religious right squirm. If evolution wasn’t valid, none of this would be possible.



I get it as I was one of the first to discover it on USMB.  Satan used atheist scientists to write the Antibible of Evolution.  It contradicts _everything_ God said in the Bible and Genesis; This cannot be just mere coincidence. Here is the thread -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You actually think a green light guarantees total confidence ? That’s funnier.
> You’ve never been to Boston. Traffic lights are just suggestions.



A green light doesn't guarantee total safety.  I hesitate for a second before taking off while waiting at a red light and it turns green.  There may still be drivers trying to beat the light.  

You take it to an almost unhealthy and fearful level of driving through a green light.  One has to be careful of someone going through a red light, but they usually don't due to fear of being T-boned and killed and seriously hurt by the right of way drivers.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think a green light guarantees total confidence ? That’s funnier.
> You’ve never been to Boston. Traffic lights are just suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A green light doesn't guarantee total safety.  I hesitate for a second before taking off while waiting at a red light and it turns green.  There may still be drivers trying to beat the light.
> 
> You take it to an almost unhealthy and fearful level of driving through a green light.  One has to be careful of someone going through a red light, but they usually don't due to fear of being T-boned and killed and seriously hurt by the right of way drivers.
Click to expand...

If a green light doesn’t guarantee safety, then by your own admission, you can’t have faith in it. Use your own definition.
Again, it’s not faith that allows you to drive through a green light. You still check both ways. Every competent driver does. Any  slight trust which isn’t complete faith that  you have is from the system and years of seeing many people do it correctly. It’s never because of some one or some thing. The most trust worthy sources always come from a collection of institutional backed modes of behavior, never from some one or something. It has nothing  to do with faith. It’s from observed evidence. That’s science. It’s science and you’re still using probability. In Boston where traffic lights are more just suggestions, you’d never use faith in other drivers and it’s a dumb idea everywhere.


I suggest that most people regardless of what you say, you use evidence and a collection of sources to make their  most important decisions, not faith.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don’t get it do you ? Evolution study has rewarded us a plethora of ideas that are used In vaccines, food manufacturing, a host of other biological fields and even AGW verification. It’s value doesn’t just lie in making the religious right squirm. If evolution wasn’t valid, none of this would be possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it as I was one of the first to discover it on USMB.  Satan used atheist scientists to write the Antibible of Evolution.  It contradicts _everything_ God said in the Bible and Genesis; This cannot be just mere coincidence. Here is the thread -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.
Click to expand...

You’re a strange duck. Genesis is not evidence and neither is the Bible. It’s  a story. One of many written by a collection of different religions. You don’t believe in anyother but your own while  an atheist doesn’t beleive in just one more religion. So don’t  make out that you’re  a believer. An agnostic is open to anything if there is evidence. They are closer then you are to believing in a god. They just haven’t seen any evidence and neither have you.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think a green light guarantees total confidence ? That’s funnier.
> You’ve never been to Boston. Traffic lights are just suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A green light doesn't guarantee total safety.  I hesitate for a second before taking off while waiting at a red light and it turns green.  There may still be drivers trying to beat the light.
> 
> You take it to an almost unhealthy and fearful level of driving through a green light.  One has to be careful of someone going through a red light, but they usually don't due to fear of being T-boned and killed and seriously hurt by the right of way drivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a green light doesn’t guarantee safety, then by your own admission, you can’t have faith in it. Use your own definition.
> Again, it’s not faith that allows you to drive through a green light. You still check both ways. Every competent driver does. Any  slight trust which isn’t complete faith that  you have is from the system and years of seeing many people do it correctly. It’s never because of some one or some thing. The most trust worthy sources always come from a collection of institutional backed modes of behavior, never from some one or something. It has nothing  to do with faith. It’s from observed evidence. That’s science. It’s science and you’re still using probability. In Boston where traffic lights are more just suggestions, you’d never use faith in other drivers and it’s a dumb idea everywhere.
> 
> 
> I suggest that most people regardless of what you say, you use evidence and a collection of sources to make their  most important decisions, not faith.
Click to expand...


This is a horrible example of faith.  It isn't about faith, but fate.  It is fate if you get T-boned and die a miserable death in a traffic accident when you had the right of way.  It is about traffic laws and punishment for violating them.  You ignored the red light driver and they were in the wrong and need to be brought to justice.  

So, instead of the way you explain it, the defensive driver scans the road ahead of him and when coming to an intersection he sees that traffic is stopped before him.  Or he tries to see if any traffic is coming.  He doesn't necessarily have to slow down and prepare to stop coming to a green light.  They can continue driving at the same speed and go through.



Dagosa said:


> You’re a strange duck. Genesis is not evidence and neither is the Bible. It’s a story. One of many written by a collection of different religions. You don’t believe in anyother but your own while an atheist doesn’t beleive in just one more religion. So don’t make out that you’re a believer. An agnostic is open to anything if there is evidence. They are closer then you are to believing in a god. They just haven’t seen any evidence and neither have you.



We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis.  For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence.  They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.

The universe, Earth, and everything in it is best explained by God and creation.  That is the best theory.  Instead, Satan had to lie and make up the Antibible of evolution which requires a big bang, cosmic inflation, and other scenarios that violate the laws of physics.


Anyway,


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> but that science backs up Genesis.


Your delusional as there is no natural science named Genesis. Nor, is there any scientific research  facility devoted to studying the Bible. Religion and science are not connected in anyway.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The universe, Earth, and everything in it is best explained by God and creation.


Only for those too lazy to use the scientific method. God and creation is a story told by old men looking to control the masses. The Bible for Christians, the Koran for Muslims, the Tora for Jews. Catholics and moderate Christians and Jews believe in evolution. Hard line Christians and Muslims don’t. You have more in common with Muslims then other Christians.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.


This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The public defection from Darwinism by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter made waves.


In the computer science world?  Why do you think it is that only creationists ever mention Darwin?  To science he is an historical icon but not a Moses bringing down the tablets.  His errors are well known and science has moved forward from them.

I guess to a creationist Don Quixote he is their windmill.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> That is the best theory. Instead, Satan had to lie and make up the Antibible of evolution which requires a big bang, cosmic inflation, and other scenarios that violate the laws of physics.


Satan, you mean Trump. Seriously, you know physics ? You guys who profess religious relevance sure know how to talk woo woo.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
Click to expand...

Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
Click to expand...



Why is it taught as a fact?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
Click to expand...

Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
Click to expand...



Sure thing, liar.


Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.


".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
Haeckel s Embryos


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
Click to expand...




Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
Click to expand...

So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
Click to expand...




Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?
Click to expand...

What would you want them to learn instead?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?
Click to expand...

Only in your mind. To everyone that matters, it’s better then a stick in your eye.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you want them to learn instead?
Click to expand...



Be sure to get back to me when you're brave enough to answer the question.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your mind. To everyone that matters, it’s better then a stick in your eye.
Click to expand...



You're sticking to your lie???


Darwin's theory is taught at every level of school as a fact.

You can see posts where government school grads claim it a fact.

The error is accepted by nearly every government school grad. Evolution…settled: “it’s a fact.”


You can play with words, but here are your pals admitting it.


“_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers

And this…

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



And…
“Evolution is 100 percent fact” The Pretense Called Evolution



And this winner:

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


It's taught, presented to students, as though it's a proven fact.

Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you want them to learn instead?
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to get back to me when you're brave enough to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Ditto.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your mind. To everyone that matters, it’s better then a stick in your eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're sticking to your lie???
> 
> 
> Darwin's theory is taught at every level of school as a fact.
> 
> You can see posts where government school grads claim it a fact.
> 
> The error is accepted by nearly every government school grad. Evolution…settled: “it’s a fact.”
> 
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> And…
> “Evolution is 100 percent fact” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> It's taught, presented to students, as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
Click to expand...

Linking to the silly, tedious, anti-science rants you engage in does nothing but confirm your religious quackery.


----------



## Taz

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heartening how you simpletons squeal like stuck pigs as you realize you've been lied to and you accepted the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what’s your theory about how all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Darwinism, proven false, imposed on students as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your mind. To everyone that matters, it’s better then a stick in your eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're sticking to your lie???
> 
> 
> Darwin's theory is taught at every level of school as a fact.
> 
> You can see posts where government school grads claim it a fact.
> 
> The error is accepted by nearly every government school grad. Evolution…settled: “it’s a fact.”
> 
> 
> You can play with words, but here are your pals admitting it.
> 
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> And…
> “Evolution is 100 percent fact” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> It's taught, presented to students, as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linking to the silly, tedious, anti-science rants you engage in does nothing but confirm your religious quackery.
Click to expand...

Koreans really go for the White man's god, especially in the North, where NKChic comes from.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but that science backs up Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusional as there is no natural science named Genesis. Nor, is there any scientific research  facility devoted to studying the Bible. Religion and science are not connected in anyway.
Click to expand...


There is a natural and very real science called Genesis.  What has happened is the science of atheism's atheist scientists have removed their opposition from taking part in peer reviews.  Thus, we get fake science by consensus and the fake science of atheism has taken over.  It's in our higher education system.  You are a perfect example of someone who believes in fake science or the science of atheism.  There is no life from non-life as being promoted by the evolutionists.  You believe in lies.

You are also wrong as creation science or real science as science that used to be done in the past before the 1850s was based on people believing in God and his creation.  This included the Bible.  We have many famous scientists from the past and current -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.  Sir Francis Bacon invented the scientific method.  Creation scientists - creation.com

Who do the evos have?  What have they accomplished?

Thus, Genesis is the real science while abiogenesis is the fake one.  The latter was based on spontaneous generation and that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur.  Today's liberals, atheists, and their atheist scientists believe in the biggest dumb things ever.  Certainly the atheist scientists should be held to a higher standard and those who have died probably are suffering incredibly in Hades.

Thus, it is YOU who is delusional and has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Satan, the god of the world and prince of the  power of the air.  The libs, atheists, and atheist scientists don't believe in Satan either when there is direct evidence.



Dagosa said:


> Satan, you mean Trump. Seriously, you know physics ? You guys who profess religious relevance sure know how to talk woo woo.



It was and still is Barack Obama who is controlled by Satan.  It could be Joe Biden next, his former partner in crime.  Since you think it's Trump, we can see that Satan has scrambled your brain and now you think up is down and down is up.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
Click to expand...


Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.









						Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
					

Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
Click to expand...

So, this drawing is all you can come up with ? 
You’re right, I can see the resemblance . The conservative fetus’s all have sphincter mouths.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this drawing is all you can come up with ?
> You’re right, I can see the resemblance . The conservative fetus’s all have sphincter mouths.
Click to expand...




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


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this drawing is all you can come up with ?
> You’re right, I can see the resemblance . The conservative fetus’s all have sphincter mouths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but that science backs up Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusional as there is no natural science named Genesis. Nor, is there any scientific research  facility devoted to studying the Bible. Religion and science are not connected in anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a natural and very real science called Genesis.  What has happened is the science of atheism's atheist scientists have removed their opposition from taking part in peer reviews.  Thus, we get fake science by consensus and the fake science of atheism has taken over.  It's in our higher education system.  You are a perfect example of someone who believes in fake science or the science of atheism.  There is no life from non-life as being promoted by the evolutionists.  You believe in lies.
> 
> You are also wrong as creation science or real science as science that used to be done in the past before the 1850s was based on people believing in God and his creation.  This included the Bible.  We have many famous scientists from the past and current -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.  Sir Francis Bacon invented the scientific method.  Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Who do the evos have?  What have they accomplished?
> 
> Thus, Genesis is the real science while abiogenesis is the fake one.  The latter was based on spontaneous generation and that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur.  Today's liberals, atheists, and their atheist scientists believe in the biggest dumb things ever.  Certainly the atheist scientists should be held to a higher standard and those who have died probably are suffering incredibly in Hades.
> 
> Thus, it is YOU who is delusional and has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Satan, the god of the world and prince of the  power of the air.  The libs, atheists, and atheist scientists don't believe in Satan either when there is direct evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, you mean Trump. Seriously, you know physics ? You guys who profess religious relevance sure know how to talk woo woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was and still is Barack Obama who is controlled by Satan.  It could be Joe Biden next, his former partner in crime.  Since you think it's Trump, we can see that Satan has scrambled your brain and now you think up is down and down is up.
Click to expand...

In the absence reason, a platitude is a failed substitute.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this drawing is all you can come up with ?
> You’re right, I can see the resemblance . The conservative fetus’s all have sphincter mouths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but that science backs up Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your delusional as there is no natural science named Genesis. Nor, is there any scientific research  facility devoted to studying the Bible. Religion and science are not connected in anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a natural and very real science called Genesis.  What has happened is the science of atheism's atheist scientists have removed their opposition from taking part in peer reviews.  Thus, we get fake science by consensus and the fake science of atheism has taken over.  It's in our higher education system.  You are a perfect example of someone who believes in fake science or the science of atheism.  There is no life from non-life as being promoted by the evolutionists.  You believe in lies.
> 
> You are also wrong as creation science or real science as science that used to be done in the past before the 1850s was based on people believing in God and his creation.  This included the Bible.  We have many famous scientists from the past and current -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.  Sir Francis Bacon invented the scientific method.  Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Who do the evos have?  What have they accomplished?
> 
> Thus, Genesis is the real science while abiogenesis is the fake one.  The latter was based on spontaneous generation and that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur.  Today's liberals, atheists, and their atheist scientists believe in the biggest dumb things ever.  Certainly the atheist scientists should be held to a higher standard and those who have died probably are suffering incredibly in Hades.
> 
> Thus, it is YOU who is delusional and has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Satan, the god of the world and prince of the  power of the air.  The libs, atheists, and atheist scientists don't believe in Satan either when there is direct evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, you mean Trump. Seriously, you know physics ? You guys who profess religious relevance sure know how to talk woo woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was and still is Barack Obama who is controlled by Satan.  It could be Joe Biden next, his former partner in crime.  Since you think it's Trump, we can see that Satan has scrambled your brain and now you think up is down and down is up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the absence reason, a platitude is a failed substitute.
Click to expand...




I can see I will have to construct another thread revealing your cowardice, your refusal to embrace the truth.


No problem.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?
Click to expand...




Certainly more informed.


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

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

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

3. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:

*Steps of the Scientific Method*
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...


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




Now......why is it that the uninformed.....you......need to be convinced that Darwinism is a proven fact, when the very opposite is true?


And.....why are you so gullible?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> And.....why are you so gullible?


Smart people outnumber you crazies. Gullible ? Look in the mirror. There are no universities in the entire world that support your crazy ideas.
It’s called a theory.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.”


Are you actually saying this quote says Darwinism is fact ? You can’t read....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.”
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually saying this quote says Darwinism is fact ? You can’t read....
Click to expand...




OK, OK>.....stop begging.

I'm convinced that you need another lesson.


Here it is.....and  you should take notes.







						Voting For Scientific Truth????
					

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?  No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.    1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> you......need to be convince


Good luck with that......I can read. 





Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.”
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually saying this quote says Darwinism is fact ? You can’t read....
Click to expand...


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> And.....why are you so gullible?


Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.


----------



## Dagosa

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing that people who think that way get their yearly flu shot from the parish priest


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
Click to expand...



You keep inserting that same lie in order to hide your fear of answering the question.


I'm satisfied in forcing you to lie.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Why is it taught as a fact?


The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.

So, you want an alternative hypothesis taught?  Okay then... state one, you coward.

What's that?  You don't really have any and will never, ever state one, so that you don't embarrass yourself?  okay.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
Click to expand...



So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?

Got it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...

Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
Click to expand...

That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.
Click to expand...

Nailed it

Like the alternative to Obamacare


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nailed it
> 
> Like the alternative to Obamacare
Click to expand...

Their alternative was to don’t get sick...then if you do, die early. Of course, They all got to go to Bethesda anytime the had a hangnail.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.
Click to expand...




Well, I proved that you're a liar, didn't I?


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...

It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.


----------



## ding

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I proved that you're a liar, didn't I?
Click to expand...

Who hasn't?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nailed it
> 
> Like the alternative to Obamacare
Click to expand...

You guys arguing against critical theory is hilarious.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
> Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.
Click to expand...

Over time humans are getting taller, that’s evolution. Doesn’t matter what causes it, something is always causing us to evolve.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason any of our best, most well-evidenced scientific theories are "taught as fact": children are taught the theories. Duh. You keep asking this same, stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie, and you buy it like it was on sale?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...yet another sissy dodge. An intellectual, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s because on a forum  just like in government, a conservatives job is not to present alternatives, it’s just to whine and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I proved that you're a liar, didn't I?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask, you obviously didn’t.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
> Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over time humans are getting taller, that’s evolution. Doesn’t matter what causes it, something is always causing us to evolve.
Click to expand...

Nope...not all humans are getting taller; Asians and Hispanics are not getting taller because their nutrition is limited.
Face it, Europeans have always eaten better than everyone else.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
Click to expand...

The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> Quesadilla now 0-for-5
> STILL:
> 1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF
> 
> 2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)
> 
> 3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.
> 
> `


Have you ever gutted a still living fish before packing it on ice?

They die faster that way which is more humane


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
> Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over time humans are getting taller, that’s evolution. Doesn’t matter what causes it, something is always causing us to evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...not all humans are getting taller; Asians and Hispanics are not getting taller because their nutrition is limited.
> Face it, Europeans have always eaten better than everyone else.
Click to expand...

Russians are Asians too, dummy.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
> Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over time humans are getting taller, that’s evolution. Doesn’t matter what causes it, something is always causing us to evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...not all humans are getting taller; Asians and Hispanics are not getting taller because their nutrition is limited.
> Face it, Europeans have always eaten better than everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russians are Asians too, dummy.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem...I'm shocked.
Now address the 1+ billion Chinese who are being starved by their "Leaders".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Ad hominem


That wasn't ad hominem. In no way was my undermining of your racist tropes reliant on calling you a dummy. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself and expose yourself for the pseudo intellectual you are.


----------



## Andylusion

Mac1958 said:


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







You can read the rest at:








						Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Version
					

The Beginning - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good...




					www.biblegateway.com


----------



## Mac1958

Andylusion said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've convinced me.
> 
> Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here?  Precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 367603
> 
> You can read the rest at:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Version
> 
> 
> The Beginning - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.biblegateway.com
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's her personal theory.  She refuses to say.  Which seems strange.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't ad hominem. In no way was my undermining of your racist tropes reliant on calling you a dummy. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself and expose yourself for the pseudo intellectual you are.
Click to expand...

What racist tropes?
I work in 5 Towns and drive through 2 others.
You're the guy who's sitting on your ass all day posting your ideological bullshit.


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quesadilla now 0-for-5
> STILL:
> 1. No answer to me gutting you on Darwin. WHIFF
> 
> 2. You're too stupid to even Google abu afak. (not Muslim)
> 
> 3. Going, indeed Winning, for the seemingly impossible dumbest creationist here.
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever gutted a still living fish before packing it on ice?
> 
> They die faster that way which is more humane
Click to expand...

Actually, you are supposed to stun them first and then cut the gills, dumbass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't ad hominem. In no way was my undermining of your racist tropes reliant on calling you a dummy. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself and expose yourself for the pseudo intellectual you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What racist tropes?
> I work in 5 Towns and drive through 2 others.
> You're the guy who's sitting on your ass all day posting your ideological bullshit.
Click to expand...

Oh my! You drive through 5 towns?! Well that settles it!


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't ad hominem. In no way was my undermining of your racist tropes reliant on calling you a dummy. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself and expose yourself for the pseudo intellectual you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What racist tropes?
> I work in 5 Towns and drive through 2 others.
> You're the guy who's sitting on your ass all day posting your ideological bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my! You drive through 5 towns?! Well that settles it!
Click to expand...

Yep!
Lots of hands on contact with people of all races and religions...while you sit on your ass at home posting bullshit.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?
Click to expand...


It's not _real_ science they believe in such as what I mentioned already -- abiogenesis, big bang, long time of billions of years old universe and Earth, multiverses, multiple dimensions such as ten or eleven, aliens, and other stupid shat.  We know the Earth and our galaxy can't last that long because we see planets, stars, and galaxies being destroyed by collision.  I suppose they can be sucked into a black hole, too.  Billions of years old Earth defies common sense as rocks would turn to dust.  Here's the experiment -- How Does a Rock Crusher Work?.  These atheist scientists who believe it have rocks in their heads haha.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not _real_ science they believe in such as what I mentioned already -- abiogenesis, big bang, long time of billions of years old universe and Earth, multiverses, multiple dimensions such as ten or eleven, aliens, and other stupid shat.  We know the Earth and our galaxy can't last that long because we see planets, stars, and galaxies being destroyed by collision.  I suppose they can be sucked into a black hole, too.  Billions of years old Earth defies common sense as rocks would turn to dust.  Here's the experiment -- How Does a Rock Crusher Work?.  These atheist scientists who believe it have rocks in their heads haha.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter what the theories are, we’re only here for a short time compared to the life of the earth let alone the universe. The only science that’s meaningful is that around our species. That’s all pretty much solid evidence wise. AGW is real and we need to do something about it. There are no smart people I associated with climate science  that disagree. Discussing what happened millions  of years ago or will happen millions  in the future , is pretty useless and is only relevant in our understanding of the rest of the universe and the development of science used here and now.  Albert Einstein observations of the universe was only relavent because it lead to science we can use here and now. It is not compared to the time it takes for us to achieve parody with the rest of the universe.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
> Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over time humans are getting taller, that’s evolution. Doesn’t matter what causes it, something is always causing us to evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...not all humans are getting taller; Asians and Hispanics are not getting taller because their nutrition is limited.
> Face it, Europeans have always eaten better than everyone else.
Click to expand...

We're all getting taller, that's evolution, doesn't matter the reason.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
Click to expand...

So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How should I know why they teach what they do? "
> 
> The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
> Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
> A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called a theory for a reason.
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
> 
> Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
> 
> It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
> 
> Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the most plausible theory."
> 
> 
> It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
> 
> You're simply too easily led.
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> 
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists dismiss Darwin.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is applied ? How does that happen ?  Natural selection is a theory. If you have a problem with a teacher using the word fact, go complain to the principal. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught as a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show just one text book used in public schools that doesn’t refer to natural Selection  as a theory....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, liar.
> 
> 
> Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it.* However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"*
> Haeckel s Embryos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this drawing is all you can come up with ?
> You’re right, I can see the resemblance . The conservative fetus’s all have sphincter mouths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but that science backs up Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your delusional as there is no natural science named Genesis. Nor, is there any scientific research  facility devoted to studying the Bible. Religion and science are not connected in anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a natural and very real science called Genesis.  What has happened is the science of atheism's atheist scientists have removed their opposition from taking part in peer reviews.  Thus, we get fake science by consensus and the fake science of atheism has taken over.  It's in our higher education system.  You are a perfect example of someone who believes in fake science or the science of atheism.  There is no life from non-life as being promoted by the evolutionists.  You believe in lies.
> 
> You are also wrong as creation science or real science as science that used to be done in the past before the 1850s was based on people believing in God and his creation.  This included the Bible.  We have many famous scientists from the past and current -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.  Sir Francis Bacon invented the scientific method.  Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Who do the evos have?  What have they accomplished?
> 
> Thus, Genesis is the real science while abiogenesis is the fake one.  The latter was based on spontaneous generation and that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur.  Today's liberals, atheists, and their atheist scientists believe in the biggest dumb things ever.  Certainly the atheist scientists should be held to a higher standard and those who have died probably are suffering incredibly in Hades.
> 
> Thus, it is YOU who is delusional and has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Satan, the god of the world and prince of the  power of the air.  The libs, atheists, and atheist scientists don't believe in Satan either when there is direct evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, you mean Trump. Seriously, you know physics ? You guys who profess religious relevance sure know how to talk woo woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was and still is Barack Obama who is controlled by Satan.  It could be Joe Biden next, his former partner in crime.  Since you think it's Trump, we can see that Satan has scrambled your brain and now you think up is down and down is up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the absence reason, a platitude is a failed substitute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see I will have to construct another thread revealing your cowardice, your refusal to embrace the truth.
> 
> 
> No problem.
Click to expand...


Oh, my. Is it time for yet another thread of the same, tired, tedious cut and paste ''quotes'' you dump into your other threads? 

Has it been 24 hours already since the last one?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not _real_ science they believe in such as what I mentioned already -- abiogenesis, big bang, long time of billions of years old universe and Earth, multiverses, multiple dimensions such as ten or eleven, aliens, and other stupid shat.  We know the Earth and our galaxy can't last that long because we see planets, stars, and galaxies being destroyed by collision.  I suppose they can be sucked into a black hole, too.  Billions of years old Earth defies common sense as rocks would turn to dust.  Here's the experiment -- How Does a Rock Crusher Work?.  These atheist scientists who believe it have rocks in their heads haha.
Click to expand...


Your silly conspiracy theories are simply another attempt at an argument for the cowardice of fear and ignorance.

I'm still waiting for ID'iot creationists to post their ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*' as a counter to science.

Shirley, you must have some supportable evidence of magic and supernaturalism to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called nutrition; that's why Brown people from South of the Border are still as short as ever.
> Blacks have benefited, nutrition wise, from Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over time humans are getting taller, that’s evolution. Doesn’t matter what causes it, something is always causing us to evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...not all humans are getting taller; Asians and Hispanics are not getting taller because their nutrition is limited.
> Face it, Europeans have always eaten better than everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're all getting taller, that's evolution, doesn't matter the reason.
Click to expand...

Of course it makes a difference; despite all of his promises since 2001, Bill Gates has not solved global hunger, but he's ready to inoculate with an untested drug to prevent COVID.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
Click to expand...

God is the greatest scientist.
Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> God is the greatest scientist.


Which god ?


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> Says whom ?
Click to expand...

God.

Please list for us your Science related PhDs.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
Click to expand...

So where do all the different animals come from?


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
Click to expand...

It's all in the Book you refuse to read so why should I waste my time on you?
The first Chapter of Genesis is hardly complicated.
You would want to believe you are the result of an accident rather than the result of a plan.
That is your prerogative; I disagree.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not _real_ science they believe in such as what I mentioned already -- abiogenesis, big bang, long time of billions of years old universe and Earth, multiverses, multiple dimensions such as ten or eleven, aliens, and other stupid shat.  We know the Earth and our galaxy can't last that long because we see planets, stars, and galaxies being destroyed by collision.  I suppose they can be sucked into a black hole, too.  Billions of years old Earth defies common sense as rocks would turn to dust.  Here's the experiment -- How Does a Rock Crusher Work?.  These atheist scientists who believe it have rocks in their heads haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn’t matter what the theories are, we’re only here for a short time compared to the life of the earth let alone the universe. The only science that’s meaningful is that around our species. That’s all pretty much solid evidence wise. AGW is real and we need to do something about it. There are no smart people I associated with climate science  that disagree. Discussing what happened millions  of years ago or will happen millions  in the future , is pretty useless and is only relevant in our understanding of the rest of the universe and the development of science used here and now.  Albert Einstein observations of the universe was only relavent because it lead to science we can use here and now. It is not compared to the time it takes for us to achieve parody with the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...


Dagosa, why are you posting in the S&T forum?  It may be better you go to R&E because that's what you believe in.  Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes so you cannot see that atheism is a religion.  Not only that, there is the science of atheism which many, many, many people believe today because that is what they were taught.  They were taught lies and false science.  That's why you believe silliness such as AGW.  You think those people are smart?  They know climate science?  Your theories have all been wrong and false and you could not figure it out.  I was hoping you would come to your senses about billions of years old Earth.  We know nothing lasts that long except your life spirit.  That is the supernatural part of life that keeps going.

Anyway, I think we've come to an impasse because you'll believe what your believe with your religion.  Science and religion are two sides of the same coin.  They both deal with the truth, but it depends on what truth you believe.  Like I said you believe up is down and down is up.  When you are that confused, then a lot can happen in a short amount of time.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the Book you refuse to read so why should I waste my time on you?
> The first Chapter of Genesis is hardly complicated.
> You would want to believe you are the result of an accident rather than the result of a plan.
> That is your prerogative; I disagree.
Click to expand...

So basically you think that god pooped everything into being?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find Genesis is not a science chapter, but that science backs up Genesis. For example, we find that the chicken came before the egg due to proteins on the eggshell that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. The evolutionists have nothing, but made up theory and still do not believe the chicken came before the egg despite the irrefutable and testable evidence. They still have to have the egg come before the chicken or else evolution is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is you talking, not Johns Hopkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You are wrong.  It was university professors and their supercomputer.  All you have are a wrong wired brain.  Useless in science or driving through a green light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
> 
> 
> Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re smarter then the AAAS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not _real_ science they believe in such as what I mentioned already -- abiogenesis, big bang, long time of billions of years old universe and Earth, multiverses, multiple dimensions such as ten or eleven, aliens, and other stupid shat.  We know the Earth and our galaxy can't last that long because we see planets, stars, and galaxies being destroyed by collision.  I suppose they can be sucked into a black hole, too.  Billions of years old Earth defies common sense as rocks would turn to dust.  Here's the experiment -- How Does a Rock Crusher Work?.  These atheist scientists who believe it have rocks in their heads haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn’t matter what the theories are, we’re only here for a short time compared to the life of the earth let alone the universe. The only science that’s meaningful is that around our species. That’s all pretty much solid evidence wise. AGW is real and we need to do something about it. There are no smart people I associated with climate science  that disagree. Discussing what happened millions  of years ago or will happen millions  in the future , is pretty useless and is only relevant in our understanding of the rest of the universe and the development of science used here and now.  Albert Einstein observations of the universe was only relavent because it lead to science we can use here and now. It is not compared to the time it takes for us to achieve parody with the rest of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dagosa, why are you posting in the S&T forum?  It may be better you go to R&E because that's what you believe in.  Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes so you cannot see that atheism is a religion.  Not only that, there is the science of atheism which many, many, many people believe today because that is what they were taught.  They were taught lies and false science.  That's why you believe silliness such as AGW.  You think those people are smart?  They know climate science?  Your theories have all been wrong and false and you could not figure it out.  I was hoping you would come to your senses about billions of years old Earth.  We know nothing lasts that long except your life spirit.  That is the supernatural part of life that keeps going.
> 
> Anyway, I think we've come to an impasse because you'll believe what your believe with your religion.  Science and religion are two sides of the same coin.  They both deal with the truth, but it depends on what truth you believe.  Like I said you believe up is down and down is up.  When you are that confused, then a lot can happen in a short amount of time.
Click to expand...

Why don’t you go back to school, if you ever did.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> Says whom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God.
> 
> Please list for us your Science related PhDs.
Click to expand...

Burp


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> Says whom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God.
> 
> Please list for us your Science related PhDs.
Click to expand...

Which god ?


----------



## Dagosa

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> Says whom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God.
> 
> Please list for us your Science related PhDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the ignorant pray to a puff of smoke.
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> Says whom ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God.
> 
> Please list for us your Science related PhDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which god ?
Click to expand...

The God who created and sustains existence.
It's the God you can't recognize because you have made yourself into a god.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the Book you refuse to read so why should I waste my time on you?
> The first Chapter of Genesis is hardly complicated.
> You would want to believe you are the result of an accident rather than the result of a plan.
> That is your prerogative; I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically you think that god pooped everything into being?
Click to expand...

Compared to God, we are poop.
You think what no professional atheist states explicitly...we just appeared out of nowhere.
Perhaps you did evolve from poop.
To be honest, when we die, we rot and become poop and that becomes fertilizer which produces what we eat.
So yes, we come from poop.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your silly conspiracy theories are simply another attempt at an argument for the cowardice of fear and ignorance.



Nope.  I have the scientific method to prove it such as with how easy it is to turn rocks to powder (and common sense) and space telescope evidence of galaxies, planets, and suns colliding.  When it comes to evolution, common sense is not so common.  I have Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method to show only life begats life, i.e. no abiogenesis, but genesis.  I have 75+ years of searching for aliens by SETI and famous atheist scientists and billionaires and no aliens.  I have the scientific method to show chickens came first.  I have soft tissue still remaining is dinosaur fossils.  I have the fine tuning facts.  FACE IT.  THE EARTH IS NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, BUT ONLY THOUSANDS!!!  Your scientists are fooled by time dilation. 

This isn't just conspiracy theories.  You are the one with the conspiracy theories like abiogenesis and big bang.  It comes from the atheists and cowardice of God and his punishment place for them called hell for eternity.  Our life spirit is supernatural and goes on forever.  The evidence is near death experiences.



Hollie said:


> I'm still waiting for ID'iot creationists to post their ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*' as a counter to science.



I've posted it and you've seen it many times:







Your atheist religion and science prevents you from believing and seeing this is how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  It is seven literal 24-hour periods because God created it on Day 1.



Hollie said:


> Shirley, you must have some supportable evidence of magic and supernaturalism to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.



God's Bible versus the Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  God said it first and then Satan rebelled and _contradicted_ everything God said.  The Bible was written by different people in different walks of life over the course of hundreds of years.  The same with the Antibible.  It follows Satan wrote it as Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's ideas of white supremacy, the Holocaust, and genocide of blacks (it's still going on with Planned Parenthood today).

Why do you believe in abortion?

Thus, what God has prophecized is coming true.  We are all headed for the end of the world and Armageddon.  He even said people from the past, present, and future will see the end of the world with all eyes will see.  Satan gave you the large asteroid collision, false global flooding (God said he will not global flood the Earth again), and AGW.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories are simply another attempt at an argument for the cowardice of fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I have the scientific method to prove it such as with how easy it is to turn rocks to powder (and common sense) and space telescope evidence of galaxies, planets, and suns colliding.  When it comes to evolution, common sense is not so common.  I have Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method to show only life begats life, i.e. no abiogenesis, but genesis.  I have 75+ years of searching for aliens by SETI and famous atheist scientists and billionaires and no aliens.  I have the scientific method to show chickens came first.  I have soft tissue still remaining is dinosaur fossils.  I have the fine tuning facts.  FACE IT.  THE EARTH IS NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, BUT ONLY THOUSANDS!!!  Your scientists are fooled by time dilation.
> 
> This isn't just conspiracy theories.  You are the one with the conspiracy theories like abiogenesis and big bang.  It comes from the atheists and cowardice of God and his punishment place for them called hell for eternity.  Our life spirit is supernatural and goes on forever.  The evidence is near death experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for ID'iot creationists to post their ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*' as a counter to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted it and you've seen it many times:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your atheist religion and science prevents you from believing and seeing this is how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  It is seven literal 24-hour periods because God created it on Day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you must have some supportable evidence of magic and supernaturalism to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's Bible versus the Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  God said it first and then Satan rebelled and _contradicted_ everything God said.  The Bible was written by different people in different walks of life over the course of hundreds of years.  The same with the Antibible.  It follows Satan wrote it as Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's ideas of white supremacy, the Holocaust, and genocide of blacks (it's still going on with Planned Parenthood today).
> 
> Why do you believe in abortion?
> 
> Thus, what God has prophecized is coming true.  We are all headed for the end of the world and Armageddon.  He even said people from the past, present, and future will see the end of the world with all eyes will see.  Satan gave you the large asteroid collision, false global flooding (God said he will not global flood the Earth again), and AGW.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Which of the seven or eight gods is the real one. 
Are you saying the Muslim


It’s so confusing, there are so many “ factual” versions of bibles and gods, we don’t know where to begin.

How about Catholics ? Are they really Christians ?


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the Book you refuse to read so why should I waste my time on you?
> The first Chapter of Genesis is hardly complicated.
> You would want to believe you are the result of an accident rather than the result of a plan.
> That is your prerogative; I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically you think that god pooped everything into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to God, we are poop.
> You think what no professional atheist states explicitly...we just appeared out of nowhere.
> Perhaps you did evolve from poop.
> To be honest, when we die, we rot and become poop and that becomes fertilizer which produces what we eat.
> So yes, we come from poop.
Click to expand...

So where did all the different animals come from? God made them magical appear?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
Click to expand...



Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
Click to expand...

IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
Click to expand...



My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.

Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
Click to expand...

Speaking if crosses, which god are we talking about n order to be a non atheist ? 
Are Jews, Muslims etc atheist because they don’t belive in the Christian God ?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
Click to expand...

You're much more entertaining when cutting and pasting ''quotes'' from Disco'tute charlatans.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories are simply another attempt at an argument for the cowardice of fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I have the scientific method to prove it such as with how easy it is to turn rocks to powder (and common sense) and space telescope evidence of galaxies, planets, and suns colliding.  When it comes to evolution, common sense is not so common.  I have Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method to show only life begats life, i.e. no abiogenesis, but genesis.  I have 75+ years of searching for aliens by SETI and famous atheist scientists and billionaires and no aliens.  I have the scientific method to show chickens came first.  I have soft tissue still remaining is dinosaur fossils.  I have the fine tuning facts.  FACE IT.  THE EARTH IS NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, BUT ONLY THOUSANDS!!!  Your scientists are fooled by time dilation.
> 
> This isn't just conspiracy theories.  You are the one with the conspiracy theories like abiogenesis and big bang.  It comes from the atheists and cowardice of God and his punishment place for them called hell for eternity.  Our life spirit is supernatural and goes on forever.  The evidence is near death experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for ID'iot creationists to post their ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*' as a counter to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted it and you've seen it many times:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your atheist religion and science prevents you from believing and seeing this is how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  It is seven literal 24-hour periods because God created it on Day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you must have some supportable evidence of magic and supernaturalism to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's Bible versus the Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  God said it first and then Satan rebelled and _contradicted_ everything God said.  The Bible was written by different people in different walks of life over the course of hundreds of years.  The same with the Antibible.  It follows Satan wrote it as Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's ideas of white supremacy, the Holocaust, and genocide of blacks (it's still going on with Planned Parenthood today).
> 
> Why do you believe in abortion?
> 
> Thus, what God has prophecized is coming true.  We are all headed for the end of the world and Armageddon.  He even said people from the past, present, and future will see the end of the world with all eyes will see.  Satan gave you the large asteroid collision, false global flooding (God said he will not global flood the Earth again), and AGW.
Click to expand...

Your screeching, flat earth inspired tirades are as tedious as ever.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
Click to expand...

I've already answered, I have no idea why schools teach what they teach. So where do all the different animals come from?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
Click to expand...

“The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. “

The feds have a minor role in selecting curriculum.


----------



## Dagosa

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already answered, I have no idea why schools teach what they teach. So where do all the different animals come from?
Click to expand...

“ The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. ”

The states have an obligation to prepare their students for institutes of higher learning and the corporations and businesses That hire these students. Not  Teaching kids that evolution Theory and encouraginging other non science is not valid Would  Bring a firestorm of protests from corporations and colleges toward state governments. Because corporations and colleges use real science, there would be a huge backlash teaching much of anything else. This goes on in state governments across the nation.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already answered, I have no idea why schools teach what they teach. So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “ The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. ”
> 
> The states have an obligation to prepare their students for institutes of higher learning and the corporations and businesses That hire these students. Not  Teaching kids that evolution Theory and encouraginging other non science is not valid Would  Bring a firestorm of protests from corporations and colleges toward state governments. Because corporations and colleges use real science, there would be a huge backlash teaching much of anything else. This goes on in state governments across the nation.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Liberals like JoeB who insist that the American Education system is a total failure and that's why we need Indian Business Visas.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. “
> 
> The feds have a minor role in selecting curriculum.
Click to expand...

The people who decide curriculum on a State level are politicians, not educators.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. “
> 
> The feds have a minor role in selecting curriculum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people who decide curriculum on a State level are politicians, not educators.
Click to expand...

You couldn’t be farther  from the truth. In government, panels made up of relevant parties are responsible for setting the curriculum recommendations. It’s ridiculous  thinking a republican legislator with a degree in business knows anything about literally, anything  * else. Even he’s not  that stupid. 

Bloviators don’t  seem to get that the entire economics of a state is dependent upon supplying an educated workforce to local businesses, corporations and schools. Much money tax base comes from these big donors. Graduates of religious fanatics and those with out a serious education gets everyone pissed. including small business., Your little “ everyone is a politician “ answer for incompetence doesn’t hold water.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already answered, I have no idea why schools teach what they teach. So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “ The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. ”
> 
> The states have an obligation to prepare their students for institutes of higher learning and the corporations and businesses That hire these students. Not  Teaching kids that evolution Theory and encouraginging other non science is not valid Would  Bring a firestorm of protests from corporations and colleges toward state governments. Because corporations and colleges use real science, there would be a huge backlash teaching much of anything else. This goes on in state governments across the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to Liberals like JoeB who insist that the American Education system is a total failure and that's why we need Indian Business Visas.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree if your posts are any indication. How anyone can come out of public education so poorly informed is a shame.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't ad hominem. In no way was my undermining of your racist tropes reliant on calling you a dummy. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself and expose yourself for the pseudo intellectual you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What racist tropes?
> I work in 5 Towns and drive through 2 others.
> You're the guy who's sitting on your ass all day posting your ideological bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my! You drive through 5 towns?! Well that settles it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep!
> Lots of hands on contact with people of all races and religions...while you sit on your ass at home posting bullshit.
Click to expand...

Selling Amway isn't exactly doing scientific research dumbass. And if any of them are educated people, they would laugh you out of the room for your  garbage.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> God is the greatest scientist.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And.....why are you so gullible?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the numpty that believes that an invisible magician poofed all the animals into being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that *you* need to insult people who are telling you to mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do YOU think all the different animals came about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the greatest scientist.
> Yes, I know...there was a flood that killed innocent children.
> I'm glad you think man has evolved on his own to the point where you think it's cool for Muslims to train their 2 year olds to commit murder.
> You mean innocent children are not always innocent!?
> No...they' not always innocent; they're parents spent hundreds of years screwing up their point of view of non-Tribe members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools claim we know the answer, i.e., that Darwin is a proven fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IDK. Why do you refuse to answer my question? Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is the only pertinent one, yet you run from it like a vampire from a cross.
> 
> Why> Too embarrassed of your own beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already answered, I have no idea why schools teach what they teach. So where do all the different animals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “ The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. ”
> 
> The states have an obligation to prepare their students for institutes of higher learning and the corporations and businesses That hire these students. Not  Teaching kids that evolution Theory and encouraginging other non science is not valid Would  Bring a firestorm of protests from corporations and colleges toward state governments. Because corporations and colleges use real science, there would be a huge backlash teaching much of anything else. This goes on in state governments across the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to Liberals like JoeB who insist that the American Education system is a total failure and that's why we need Indian Business Visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tend to agree if your posts are any indication. How anyone can come out of public education so poorly informed is a shame.
Click to expand...

Considering the gist of your posts are that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, I can assume you would come to that conclusion.
Now if only you are willing to post something that can be discussed.

Perhaps how Reagan and both parties came together in 1981 to oust minorities from Wall Street and brought in Japanese and Chinese Business Visas to replace them.
But that would mean admitting that Democrats suck as much as Republicans.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Considering the gist of your posts are that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, I can assume you would come to that conclusion.
> Now if only you are willing to post something that can be discussed.


Not everyone, just science deniers and Trump supporters. Commander and cheat is a liar and cheat.,. The only way one can believe in a liar and cheat and cover for him, is to be on that side if the fence.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Seriously. Which of the seven or eight gods is the real one.
> Are you saying the Muslim



First, the believers of the one true God know that the science of atheism is fake and atheism is a wrong religion.  Because God created the world in seven literal days as I posted in the graph above.  We know because science backs up the Bible.

Moreover, you are an atheist, so you don't know while I can figure out the real one and real science.  You might as well be Muslim if you decide to convert.  You will never get the real science.



Dagosa said:


> It’s so confusing, there are so many “ factual” versions of bibles and gods, we don’t know where to begin.
> 
> How about Catholics ? Are they really Christians ?



I think you're confused because you are atheist and atheists are usually wrong.  In this case, you are wrong about the religions.






						Chick.com: Allah Had No Son
					






					chick.com
				




Catholics believe in Jesus so they are Christians.  There are some who may be misled by their Pope so they may have to go through tribulation after death.  The same as the atheists after they see the real Jesus.  Even the greatest thing an atheist ever said won't prevent every eye will see.  I don't exactly know how it works because the prophecies are allegorical, but we can get the gist of what happens.  For example, the science of the atheists believe in the North and South poles reversing polarity, i.e. positive becomes negative and negative becomes positive, but I think the Earth flips upside down.  That would be a scary event instead of what your scientists and you believe.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories are simply another attempt at an argument for the cowardice of fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I have the scientific method to prove it such as with how easy it is to turn rocks to powder (and common sense) and space telescope evidence of galaxies, planets, and suns colliding.  When it comes to evolution, common sense is not so common.  I have Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method to show only life begats life, i.e. no abiogenesis, but genesis.  I have 75+ years of searching for aliens by SETI and famous atheist scientists and billionaires and no aliens.  I have the scientific method to show chickens came first.  I have soft tissue still remaining is dinosaur fossils.  I have the fine tuning facts.  FACE IT.  THE EARTH IS NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, BUT ONLY THOUSANDS!!!  Your scientists are fooled by time dilation.
> 
> This isn't just conspiracy theories.  You are the one with the conspiracy theories like abiogenesis and big bang.  It comes from the atheists and cowardice of God and his punishment place for them called hell for eternity.  Our life spirit is supernatural and goes on forever.  The evidence is near death experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for ID'iot creationists to post their ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*' as a counter to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted it and you've seen it many times:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your atheist religion and science prevents you from believing and seeing this is how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  It is seven literal 24-hour periods because God created it on Day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you must have some supportable evidence of magic and supernaturalism to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's Bible versus the Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  God said it first and then Satan rebelled and _contradicted_ everything God said.  The Bible was written by different people in different walks of life over the course of hundreds of years.  The same with the Antibible.  It follows Satan wrote it as Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's ideas of white supremacy, the Holocaust, and genocide of blacks (it's still going on with Planned Parenthood today).
> 
> Why do you believe in abortion?
> 
> Thus, what God has prophecized is coming true.  We are all headed for the end of the world and Armageddon.  He even said people from the past, present, and future will see the end of the world with all eyes will see.  Satan gave you the large asteroid collision, false global flooding (God said he will not global flood the Earth again), and AGW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your screeching, flat earth inspired tirades are as tedious as ever.
Click to expand...


You still have feces in your ears that leaked from your brain.  You have not heard one word that I've said.  Maybe you will end up in flatland where you belong.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Which of the seven or eight gods is the real one.
> Are you saying the Muslim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the believers of the one true God know that the science of atheism is fake and atheism is a wrong religion.  Because God created the world in seven literal days as I posted in the graph above.  We know because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Moreover, you are an atheist, so you don't know while I can figure out the real one and real science.  You might as well be Muslim if you decide to convert.  You will never get the real science.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s so confusing, there are so many “ factual” versions of bibles and gods, we don’t know where to begin.
> 
> How about Catholics ? Are they really Christians ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're confused because you are atheist and atheists are usually wrong.  In this case, you are wrong about the religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chick.com: Allah Had No Son
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chick.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics believe in Jesus so they are Christians.  There are some who may be misled by their Pope so they may have to go through tribulation after death.  The same as the atheists after they see the real Jesus.  Even the greatest thing an atheist ever said won't prevent every eye will see.  I don't exactly know how it works because the prophecies are allegorical, but we can get the gist of what happens.  For example, the science of the atheists believe in the North and South poles reversing polarity, i.e. positive becomes negative and negative becomes positive, but I think the Earth flips upside down.  That would be a scary event instead of what your scientists and you believe.
Click to expand...


You do understand that every food you eat and vaccine you’ve ever  used was augmented  by Evolution theory and knowledge from Darwin and others supplemented by work from Gregor Mendel a Christian and other others in genetics. You’re in total denial saying science is wrong while basking in the glow of a life expectancy that has double . Where do you get off claiming that what ? Jews are atheist and Catholics have been lead astray ? Because why ? They don’t beleive in the fairy god father ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> because science backs up the Bible.


There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories are simply another attempt at an argument for the cowardice of fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I have the scientific method to prove it such as with how easy it is to turn rocks to powder (and common sense) and space telescope evidence of galaxies, planets, and suns colliding.  When it comes to evolution, common sense is not so common.  I have Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method to show only life begats life, i.e. no abiogenesis, but genesis.  I have 75+ years of searching for aliens by SETI and famous atheist scientists and billionaires and no aliens.  I have the scientific method to show chickens came first.  I have soft tissue still remaining is dinosaur fossils.  I have the fine tuning facts.  FACE IT.  THE EARTH IS NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, BUT ONLY THOUSANDS!!!  Your scientists are fooled by time dilation.
> 
> This isn't just conspiracy theories.  You are the one with the conspiracy theories like abiogenesis and big bang.  It comes from the atheists and cowardice of God and his punishment place for them called hell for eternity.  Our life spirit is supernatural and goes on forever.  The evidence is near death experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for ID'iot creationists to post their ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*' as a counter to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted it and you've seen it many times:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your atheist religion and science prevents you from believing and seeing this is how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  It is seven literal 24-hour periods because God created it on Day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you must have some supportable evidence of magic and supernaturalism to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's Bible versus the Satan's Antibible of Evolution.  God said it first and then Satan rebelled and _contradicted_ everything God said.  The Bible was written by different people in different walks of life over the course of hundreds of years.  The same with the Antibible.  It follows Satan wrote it as Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's ideas of white supremacy, the Holocaust, and genocide of blacks (it's still going on with Planned Parenthood today).
> 
> Why do you believe in abortion?
> 
> Thus, what God has prophecized is coming true.  We are all headed for the end of the world and Armageddon.  He even said people from the past, present, and future will see the end of the world with all eyes will see.  Satan gave you the large asteroid collision, false global flooding (God said he will not global flood the Earth again), and AGW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your screeching, flat earth inspired tirades are as tedious as ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have feces in your ears that leaked from your brain.  You have not heard one word that I've said.  Maybe you will end up in flatland where you belong.
Click to expand...


There's no reason to get angry and emotive. These emotional outbursts of yours serve no purpose. 

That you can't make a supportable case for supernatural gods is your issue to resolve. Yes, I understand your reaction to those who don't share your fears and superstitions is to shower them with hate and revulsion. 

I have no interest in sharing your loathing for science, learning and personal choice / responsibility.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the gist of your posts are that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, I can assume you would come to that conclusion.
> Now if only you are willing to post something that can be discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone, just science deniers and Trump supporters. Commander and cheat is a liar and cheat.,. The only way one can believe in a liar and cheat and cover for him, is to be on that side if the fence.
Click to expand...

My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Indeependent said:


> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.



Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.









						Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
					






					AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
				




Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.


----------



## Indeependent

ChemEngineer said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
Click to expand...

What's really fascinating about the Mentally Ill Atheist is that no matter how simple and well laid out you show them to be, they make believe they don't understand what you just presented.
What's scary is I think their brains actually are incapable with clear explanations that go against their ideology.

Richard Dawkins is a joke...he's constantly misquoting verses or making them up on the fly, and when it's pointed out to him, he says he'll check into it.
If he actually told the truth, he's go broke.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Indeependent said:


> What's really fascinating about the Mentally Ill Atheist is that no matter how simple and well laid out you show them to be, they make believe they don't understand what you just presented.
> What's scary is I think their brains actually are incapable with clear explanations that go against their ideology.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke...he's constantly misquoting verses or making them up on the fly, and when it's pointed out to him, he says he'll check into it.
> If he actually told the truth, he's go broke.



*The Blind Watchmaker* by Richard Dawkins

“Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” - PAGE 139

No, that is not remotely true.  Dawkins accepts that one chance in 10 to the 40th power is "impossible."  There is NOT "infinite time" nor are there "infinite opportunities" so his inane claim is meaningless.

(“ . . .it is _possible_ for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”- PAGE 160

Marble statues waving and cows jumping over the moon.   "Possible."


“A1>A2. B1>B2" - PAGE 171

How scientific Dawkins is not.  I have worked countless chemical reactions and equations and never have I seen such meaningless simplicity, or rather ignorance, as this alphabeticization.

This hateful atheist now has the nickname of Elevator Man after propositioning a woman he met in an elevator.  How embarrassing, particularly given his extremely  bad teeth and bitter attitude.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You do understand that every food you eat and vaccine you’ve ever used was augmented by Evolution theory and knowledge from Darwin and others supplemented by work from Gregor Mendel a Christian and other others in genetics.



Charles Darwin is screaming his arse off in Hades being one of the burning dead and not sleeping dead.  Father Gregor Mendel's work was for creation science.  He was no Darwinian because Darwin needed over 4 billion years while Mendel needed "successive generations" and coined that phrase.  As I stated atheists are usually wrong and Darwin was wrong with his pangenesis hypothesis of inheritance.  You know very well Mendel was right because he followed and practiced real science.



Dagosa said:


> Where do you get off claiming that what ? Jews are atheist and Catholics have been lead astray ? Because why ? They don’t beleive in the fairy god father ?



I have no idea what you are talking about as you are putting words in my mouth.  Why don't you give some examples so I and others here know what Jewish statements from the Torah you are referring to?  Let's see if you know anything?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that



I've given you plenty of evidence to support it during our discussion while all you could claim was Father Gregor Mendel, but now we know he supported creation science and not Darwin.

"And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:11-12


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> have no idea what you are talking about as you are putting words in my mouth. Why don't you give some examples so I and others here know what Jewish statements from the Torah you are referring to? Let's see if you know anything?





james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that every food you eat and vaccine you’ve ever used was augmented by Evolution theory and knowledge from Darwin and others supplemented by work from Gregor Mendel a Christian and other others in genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin is screaming his arse off in Hades being one of the burning dead and not sleeping dead.  Father Gregor Mendel's work was for creation science.  He was no Darwinian because Darwin needed over 4 billion years while Mendel needed "successive generations" and coined that phrase.  As I stated atheists are usually wrong and Darwin was wrong with his pangenesis hypothesis of inheritance.  You know very well Mendel was right because he followed and practiced real science.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get off claiming that what ? Jews are atheist and Catholics have been lead astray ? Because why ? They don’t beleive in the fairy god father ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about as you are putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Of course you don’t understand , you’re ignorant.
Genetics is the mechanism of evolution and Gregor Mendel work with pea pods became a  foundation in the understanding of genetics.

Case closed. Don’t go out in the real world around educated people, they’ll laugh at you.


----------



## Dagosa

ChemEngineer said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
Click to expand...

More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ? 
Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
Click to expand...

Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.

Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.


----------



## Dagosa

Dagosa said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
Click to expand...

They’re mentally conflicted. They put up a wall. Essentially, they’re afraid of everything. Yet, they think they know a big secrete that the rest of us don’t.


----------



## Dagosa

ChemEngineer said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what an athiest is. Define it.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’re mentally conflicted. They put up a wall. Essentially, they’re afraid of everything. Yet, they think they know a big secrete that the rest of us don’t.
Click to expand...

What wall?
I painted the only possible scenario and the only response by atheists has been, "Up yours!".
Atheists are so erudite.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
Click to expand...

There's no debate as you are no responding to the only possible scenario because you can't.
You can't find one evolutionist who addresses this issue head on?
Of course not;  because it can't be explained as a chance occurrence.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
Click to expand...

Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
Click to expand...

You just proved you are an idiot by asking a stupid question.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’re mentally conflicted. They put up a wall. Essentially, they’re afraid of everything. Yet, they think they know a big secrete that the rest of us don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What wall?
> I painted the only possible scenario and the only response by atheists has been, "Up yours!".
> Atheists are so erudite.The
Click to expand...

So, what’s an atheist ?


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just proved you are an idiot by asking a stupid question.
Click to expand...

Translation...
Ad hominem because you can't address the issue.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’re mentally conflicted. They put up a wall. Essentially, they’re afraid of everything. Yet, they think they know a big secrete that the rest of us don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What wall?
> I painted the only possible scenario and the only response by atheists has been, "Up yours!".
> Atheists are so erudite.The
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what’s an atheist ?
Click to expand...

An arrogant person who wants to be beholden to no one or anything.
I have never met an atheist who wasn't arrogant, regardless of the topic being addressed.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
Click to expand...

Sounds like another Conservative gay guy who can’t find the key to get out of the closet.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like another Conservative gay guy who can’t find the key to get out of the closet.
Click to expand...

This is my last response to you on this Thread because you're an idiot.
Now please and post something above Sesame Street level.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’re mentally conflicted. They put up a wall. Essentially, they’re afraid of everything. Yet, they think they know a big secrete that the rest of us don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What wall?
> I painted the only possible scenario and the only response by atheists has been, "Up yours!".
> Atheists are so erudite.The
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what’s an atheist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An arrogant person who wants to be beholden to no one or anything.
> I have never met an atheist who wasn't arrogant, regardless of the topic being addressed.
Click to expand...

Never met a creationist who didn’t sound dumb as rock regardless of the topic being discussed. Very Trumpian.

Still can’t define an atheist  ? Thought so. Just call then all socialist.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like another Conservative gay guy who can’t find the key to get out of the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is my last response to you on this Thread because you're an idiot.
> Now please and post something above Sesame Street level.
Click to expand...

That is for all the favors twinkle toes.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like another Conservative gay guy who can’t find the key to get out of the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is my last response to you on this Thread because you're an idiot.
> Now please and post something above Sesame Street level.
Click to expand...

Christianity ? Which one is that ? The one that believes in evolution or the one that old white guys get to marry more then one wife and underaged  girls. Sounds like a gig to collect money.m


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool...prove you're not an idiot by addressing the Slime planning male/female pairs in the millions over close to a billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like another Conservative gay guy who can’t find the key to get out of the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is my last response to you on this Thread because you're an idiot.
> Now please and post something above Sesame Street level.
Click to expand...

Move on sucker. 
Jerry Falwell needs a tithing.


----------



## Dagosa

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
					

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?




					www.livescience.com


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such an angry fundie. Curious, though, For all your whining about debate with atheists being impossible, it is you who ran from debate. Like a petulant child, you got angry when your specious opinions were refuted which caused you to claim to put others on ignore.
> 
> Looks more like debate with religionists is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no debate as you are no responding to the only possible scenario because you can't.
> You can't find one evolutionist who addresses this issue head on?
> Of course not;  because it can't be explained as a chance occurrence.
Click to expand...

What issue are you claiming an evolutionist can't address?

How does a religionist address such an issue?


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> An arrogant person who wants to be beholden to no one or anything.


No where in any dictionary is that the definition of an atheist.
By your definition, priest and pastors who molest children and the David Koresh lead  Band who were beholding to their leader  would be fine  with you.


Only when a religion becomes moderate and benign and believes science and not fairytales  does it serve man kind properly.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> have no idea what you are talking about as you are putting words in my mouth. Why don't you give some examples so I and others here know what Jewish statements from the Torah you are referring to? Let's see if you know anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that every food you eat and vaccine you’ve ever used was augmented by Evolution theory and knowledge from Darwin and others supplemented by work from Gregor Mendel a Christian and other others in genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin is screaming his arse off in Hades being one of the burning dead and not sleeping dead.  Father Gregor Mendel's work was for creation science.  He was no Darwinian because Darwin needed over 4 billion years while Mendel needed "successive generations" and coined that phrase.  As I stated atheists are usually wrong and Darwin was wrong with his pangenesis hypothesis of inheritance.  You know very well Mendel was right because he followed and practiced real science.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get off claiming that what ? Jews are atheist and Catholics have been lead astray ? Because why ? They don’t beleive in the fairy god father ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about as you are putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don’t understand , you’re ignorant.
> Genetics is the mechanism of evolution and Gregor Mendel work with pea pods became a  foundation in the understanding of genetics.
> 
> Case closed. Don’t go out in the real world around educated people, they’ll laugh at you.
Click to expand...

d


You are clueless in so many ways.
Mendel had no use for Darwin, and Mendel's work was correct, Darwin's wrong.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that *gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change*. The disadvantage of Dar- win’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, _The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_ ,

Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter

V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190,

210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)



Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My community probably has more hard science professionals than you’ll ever meet in your life and they approve of his legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can examine the very long list of Jews who were awarded Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, economics, medicine, you name it.   There is a longer list of Christian Laureates simply because Christianity is the largest organization in the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate with atheists is impossible.  They are bitter, condescending, and can't  stick to the subject when it is science. They always regress to the Bible, which they deny but quote relentlessly.  I critiqued several books by Richard Dawkins and he acts just like all the others, ignoring the points I made and attacking me personally.   It's not about me.   It's about his jejune ignorance and incoherence.  He never wants to address those points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS. You dont even know what an atheist is ?
> Is a Muslim or Jew or a nudist an Athiest ? They don’t Bellevue   in your God. But somehow, you’ve elevated everyone who believes in ghosts above these who want evidence.
Click to expand...



I hope you see the thread I'm going to put up today, called 'Kneel.'

It will explain another concept you are ignorant about......atheists.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
Click to expand...



Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
Click to expand...


The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
Click to expand...

Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.


----------



## Hollie

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
Click to expand...

With reference to political chic and her trembling fear of “Darwinism”, it is Darwinism that demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

Further, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to define as "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by ID’iot creationists / Flat Earthers that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

There’s nothing that angers religious extremists more than a natural explanation for life on the planet which contradicts their tales and fables.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
Click to expand...



Technical????


You moron.....what experiments did he perform????

His theory is philosophy, theology, not science.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technical????
> 
> 
> You moron.....what experiments did he perform????
> 
> His theory is philosophy, theology, not science.
Click to expand...

“Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”



			experiments performed by darwin - Google Search


----------



## Indeependent

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technical????
> 
> 
> You moron.....what experiments did he perform????
> 
> His theory is philosophy, theology, not science.
Click to expand...

Helen Keller had better senses than an atheist.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Okay Indeependent, what was Helen Keller's favorite color?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
corduroy

/
/
/
/
/
What was her dog's name?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
*RRRRRRNNNNNMMMMMMMMMM*


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Of course you don’t understand , you’re ignorant.
> Genetics is the mechanism of evolution and Gregor Mendel work with pea pods became a foundation in the understanding of genetics.



To the contrary, I have read about evolution and creation science, so I know which one is false while you don't.  Darwin was a failure with his pangenesis hypothesis as it was wrong.  Genetics is not a mechanism for evolution as there is no evolution.  OTOH, Gregor Mendel's work with pea pods produced his three laws (Trinity based?) for genetics.  You do not even know what these laws covered haha.

To the contrary, I can speak to a roomful of people from different walks of life and make a great case for why creation science has been systematically eliminated from today's evolutionary science and get people to think over what they know as "science" today.  For example, why do people think it all started with a big bang?

Basically, Darwin was wrong and he believed in racism with the whites at the top of the racial classes.  Just look at the graph.  No other races are depicted.  Can you hear him screaming in fiery pain in Hades?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You have no idea what an athiest is. Define it.



An atheist is a person who has _faith_ that there is no God or gods.

A Christian believes an atheist will burn in hell forever in pain and suffering or something like that based on the Biblical prophecies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”



This is one of the dumbest arguments that atheists make.  We know light from the EMS can grow plants.  Dumb and atheist should be synonyms.  Furthermore, the fable is from the Antibible of evolution.  Dagosa tried but failed to convince us the Father Gregor Mendel found the laws of inheritance based on Darwinism.  Mendel was no racist and he was motivated by creation science:

" Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor    Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution,    were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could    change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics    remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested    ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation.    Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible    to maintain the fiction of evolution."









						Genetics: no friend of evolution
					

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.




					creation.com


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search



As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.

It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
Click to expand...

A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
Click to expand...



No it doesn't, you moron.

It IS the butterfly.


This is not a subject you can handle.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between transforming and evolving.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
Click to expand...

Address my question.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a difference between transforming and evolving.
Click to expand...



The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog.


It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
Click to expand...

It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a difference between transforming and evolving.
Click to expand...

You think that one species can’t change into another. Here, a wormy thing changes into a flying thing.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Address my question.
Click to expand...

What question?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
Click to expand...



I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....


This will be the opening of the OP.
Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Address my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question?
Click to expand...

Wow!  You really are stupid.
End of conversation.


----------



## Indeependent

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
Click to expand...

It's scary to know that God created these idiots.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
Click to expand...

like anyone cares about the threads you start.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
Click to expand...

God must not be perfect.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God must not be perfect.
Click to expand...

His creation certainly isn't.
But then, we'd all be Gods and what a mess that would be.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Indeependent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
Click to expand...



I bet God would be too busy laughing to even deny it.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God must not be perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His creation certainly isn't.
> But then, we'd all be Gods and what a mess that would be.
Click to expand...

I’d make a better god. I wouldn’t deform babies.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet God would be too busy laughing to even deny it.
Click to expand...

God’s too busy deforming babies and making others retarded.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest arguments that atheists make.  We know light from the EMS can grow plants.  Dumb and atheist should be synonyms.  Furthermore, the fable is from the Antibible of evolution.  Dagosa tried but failed to convince us the Father Gregor Mendel found the laws of inheritance based on Darwinism.  Mendel was no racist and he was motivated by creation science:
> 
> " Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor    Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution,    were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could    change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics    remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested    ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation.    Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible    to maintain the fiction of evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetics: no friend of evolution
> 
> 
> Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com
Click to expand...

You got all that from charlatans / Flat Earthers at creation.com did ya?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like anyone cares about the threads you start.
Click to expand...



And this imbecile writes "like anyone cares about the threads you start." after posting in it 20-30 times.

What a lack of self-awareness as well as intelligence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Address my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You really are stupid.
> End of conversation.
Click to expand...




No...no.......keep drawing him out.......this is comedy gold!!!


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
Click to expand...

What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?

Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?


----------



## Indeependent

PoliticalChic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Address my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You really are stupid.
> End of conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...no.......keep drawing him out.......this is comedy gold!!!
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm dealing with people with Down's Syndrome.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
Click to expand...

Let's quote Hollie...
"Huh?"
"What was the question?"
"Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"

I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet God would be too busy laughing to even deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God’s too busy deforming babies and making others retarded.
Click to expand...

Such as yourself.
ADD?
ADHD?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
Click to expand...

That’s another of your tactics to avoid questions you’re ill equipped to address.

Are you at the 23rd and last time yet?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
Click to expand...


We can assume you will collect the phony “quotes” you dumped into your other threads and recycle them into the new thread?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
Click to expand...



I don't have anything to do with that one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet God would be too busy laughing to even deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God’s too busy deforming babies and making others retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as yourself.
> ADD?
> ADHD?
Click to expand...




His sort remains important to this discussion, as it reveals the level of ignorance on the subject.

Let's not scare him away.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s another of your tactics to avoid questions you’re ill equipped to address.
> 
> Are you at the 23rd and last time yet?
Click to expand...

Idiot...I've asked you to do research and all you care about is ridiculing religion.
I'm asking you to find proof of evolution based on events that can't possibly happen.


----------



## Indeependent

PoliticalChic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's scary to know that God created these idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet God would be too busy laughing to even deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God’s too busy deforming babies and making others retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as yourself.
> ADD?
> ADHD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His sort remains important to this discussion, as it reveals the level of ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Let's not scare him away.
Click to expand...

Taz has severe emotional issues; I Ignored him at one time but I decided a few weeks ago to have some laughs.


----------



## Indeependent

PoliticalChic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
Click to expand...

Hollie is for sure one of the bottom feeders.


----------



## ChemEngineer

PoliticalChic said:


> The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog.
> 
> It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA.



Which characteristics and instructions we cannot begin to read and understand.
You will wear out electrical generating stations nationwide responding to Leftists/atheists.   It is futile.

But on the subject of development, consider that one single cell of a human, or a dog, or a fish, divides into scores of disparate and entirely different cells, from tooth enamel, to bone, to red blood cells, to vitreous humor, to muscle.   Elegant design perhaps forever beyond human comprehension, and to pretend it made itself, beginning with water dripping on rocks..... please.  Stop waving the Atheists' Magic Wand.  Symphonies had composers who were brilliant.  Books had authors.  A>B>C>D doesn't cut it.
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent


----------



## ChemEngineer

PoliticalChic said:


> No...no.......keep drawing him out.......this is comedy gold!!!



We already have Joe Biden. No more!  I can't take any more!

Crazy Town Joe Biden - Extended Edition


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s another of your tactics to avoid questions you’re ill equipped to address.
> 
> Are you at the 23rd and last time yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot...I've asked you to do research and all you care about is ridiculing religion.
> I'm asking you to find proof of evolution based on events that can't possibly happen.
Click to expand...


I can see you’re angry and emotive.

What events, according to you, can’t possibly happen and how do you know such events can’t possibly happen?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog.
> 
> It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which characteristics and instructions we cannot begin to read and understand.
> You will wear out electrical generating stations nationwide responding to Leftists/atheists.   It is futile.
> 
> But on the subject of development, consider that one single cell of a human, or a dog, or a fish, divides into scores of disparate and entirely different cells, from tooth enamel, to bone, to red blood cells, to vitreous humor, to muscle.   Elegant design perhaps forever beyond human comprehension, and to pretend it made itself, beginning with water dripping on rocks..... please.  Stop waving the Atheists' Magic Wand.  Symphonies had composers who were brilliant.  Books had authors.  A>B>C>D doesn't cut it.
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
Click to expand...


“Symphonies had composers who were brilliant. Books had authors”

.....designer gods were the design of hierarchies of designer gods.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie is for sure one of the bottom feeders.
Click to expand...


Do the gods approve of your behavior?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s another of your tactics to avoid questions you’re ill equipped to address.
> 
> Are you at the 23rd and last time yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot...I've asked you to do research and all you care about is ridiculing religion.
> I'm asking you to find proof of evolution based on events that can't possibly happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you’re angry and emotive.
> 
> What events, according to you, can’t possibly happen and how do you know such events can’t possibly happen?
Click to expand...

I painted what supposedly had to happen.
Find proof and don't ask again what I asked for when I have posted it over 20 times.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie is for sure one of the bottom feeders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the gods approve of your behavior?
Click to expand...

What gods?
There is only 1 God.
What behavior?
Pointing out how stupid you are?
All I'm doing is asking you and your fellow atheists to prove that an impossible scenario occurred and all you atheists are doing is showing how dumb you are by pretending not to understand what I'm asking for.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s another of your tactics to avoid questions you’re ill equipped to address.
> 
> Are you at the 23rd and last time yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot...I've asked you to do research and all you care about is ridiculing religion.
> I'm asking you to find proof of evolution based on events that can't possibly happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you’re angry and emotive.
> 
> What events, according to you, can’t possibly happen and how do you know such events can’t possibly happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I painted what supposedly had to happen.
> Find proof and don't ask again what I asked for when I have posted it over 20 times.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you painted. Who supposed what you claim supposedly had to happen?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie is for sure one of the bottom feeders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the gods approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gods?
> There is only 1 God.
> What behavior?
> Pointing out how stupid you are?
> All I'm doing is asking you and your fellow atheists to prove that an impossible scenario occurred and all you atheists are doing is showing how dumb you are by pretending not to understand what I'm asking for.
Click to expand...


Why would you claim there is only one god when hundreds of gods have been claimed to exist before the invention of your gods.

You’re carrying on about some impossible scenario that you claim could not have occurred with nothing more than “....because I say so”

In the meantime, tell us about those Ark tales.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie is for sure one of the bottom feeders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the gods approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gods?
> There is only 1 God.
> What behavior?
> Pointing out how stupid you are?
> All I'm doing is asking you and your fellow atheists to prove that an impossible scenario occurred and all you atheists are doing is showing how dumb you are by pretending not to understand what I'm asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you claim there is only one god when hundreds of gods have been claimed to exist before the invention of your gods.
> 
> You’re carrying on about some impossible scenario that you claim could not have occurred with nothing more than “....because I say so”
> 
> In the meantime, tell us about those Ark tales.
Click to expand...

This Thread is about evolution...answer the question posed to you or find someone who can.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, you moron.
> 
> It IS the butterfly.
> 
> 
> This is not a subject you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a wormy thing that evolves into a flying thing. You lose Kimchick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely gonna write another thread, with your quote as the reason why....
> 
> 
> This will be the opening of the OP.
> Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It give a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.
> 
> 
> You'll be famous......get the autographed photos ready for distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Another thread full of “quotes” from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Has it been 12 hours already since the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh?  I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie is for sure one of the bottom feeders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the gods approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gods?
> There is only 1 God.
> What behavior?
> Pointing out how stupid you are?
> All I'm doing is asking you and your fellow atheists to prove that an impossible scenario occurred and all you atheists are doing is showing how dumb you are by pretending not to understand what I'm asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you claim there is only one god when hundreds of gods have been claimed to exist before the invention of your gods.
> 
> You’re carrying on about some impossible scenario that you claim could not have occurred with nothing more than “....because I say so”
> 
> In the meantime, tell us about those Ark tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This Thread is about evolution...answer the question posed to you or find someone who can.
Click to expand...


What question?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
Click to expand...

Considering absolute none of the universities  in the world agrees with you, none of the medical research facilities, you have little No ground  to stand on.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> To the contrary, I have read about evolution and creation science


Creation is not a science. You can stop right there. Everything else is made up shit.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Basically, Darwin was wrong and he believed in racism with the whites at the top of the racial classes. Just look at the graph. No other races are depicted.


Basically you don’t know what you are talking about. You’re bloviating on a forum just making up shit. Just like the inventors of creationism


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technical????
> 
> 
> You moron.....what experiments did he perform????
> 
> His theory is philosophy, theology, not science.
Click to expand...




Indeependent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technical????
> 
> 
> You moron.....what experiments did he perform????
> 
> His theory is philosophy, theology, not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helen Keller had better senses than an atheist.
Click to expand...

So what is an atheist ?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever ever of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Big Bang, and the order of events in Genesis.....you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Genesis fable indicates the gods magically created plants before they magically turned on the sun.....“quote” you moron “de-quote”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that Darwin was as correct as he was given his technological limitations. The only thing he got close to being wrong was suggesting that in some instances One type of  creature could evolve into a say a whale as opposed to another  type creature. Seems pretty Acceptable given his evidential limitations. He was remarkably Correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technical????
> 
> 
> You moron.....what experiments did he perform????
> 
> His theory is philosophy, theology, not science.
Click to expand...

Well we know you can’t read or do research......seriously, did you ever take a science course ?


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer said:


> Which characteristics and instructions we cannot begin to read and understand.
> You will wear out electrical generating stations nationwide responding to Leftists/atheists.   It is futile.
> 
> But on the subject of development, consider that one single cell of a human, or a dog, or a fish, divides into scores of disparate and entirely different cells, from tooth enamel, to bone, to red blood cells, to vitreous humor, to muscle.   Elegant design perhaps forever beyond human comprehension, and to pretend it made itself, beginning with water dripping on rocks..... please.  Stop waving the Atheists' Magic Wand.  Symphonies had composers who were brilliant.  Books had authors.  A>B>C>D doesn't cut it.
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent


You prefer the simpler/Simpleton waving the God wand.

`


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> Let's quote Hollie...
> "Huh?"
> "What was the question?"
> "Huh? I don't understand what you're saying!"
> 
> I couldn't help it; you *are* comedy platinum!



She could've been a platinum blonde earlier.  Now she's platinum gray.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You prefer the simpler/Simpleton waving the God wand.



Prolly a cheap, but painful sin in that statement.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I can see you’re angry and emotive



I bet you say that to all the Christian boys.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Considering absolute none of the universities in the world agrees with you, none of the medical research facilities, you have little No ground to stand on.



You need to take the feces out of your ears because I addressed this.  Satan's Antibible of Evolution has taken over the schools since creationists and creation science were removed.  Thus, we get science of atheism and no God teaching and beliefs in all of our educational system.  This has to change and change for the better as it used to be.



Dagosa said:


> Creation is not a science. You can stop right there. Everything else is made up shit.



This is stupid AF ignorance on your part.  It's not the first time.



Dagosa said:


> Basically you don’t know what you are talking about. You’re bloviating on a forum just making up shit. Just like the inventors of creationism



Basically, I know what I am talking about and am right.  You are the one bloviating and making up shit.  Just as Satan planned with evolution and having many go to hell and under his dominion.

What did my hero Blaise Pascal state with his wager:


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering absolute none of the universities in the world agrees with you, none of the medical research facilities, you have little No ground to stand on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take the feces out of your ears because I addressed this.  Satan's Antibible of Evolution has taken over the schools since creationists and creation science were removed.  Thus, we get science of atheism and no God teaching and beliefs in all of our educational system.  This has to change and change for the better as it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is not a science. You can stop right there. Everything else is made up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is stupid AF ignorance on your part.  It's not the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically you don’t know what you are talking about. You’re bloviating on a forum just making up shit. Just like the inventors of creationism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, I know what I am talking about and am right.  You are the one bloviating and making up shit.  Just as Satan planned with evolution and having many go to hell and under his dominion.
> 
> What did my hero Blaise Pascal state with his wager:
> 
> View attachment 369356
Click to expand...

A complete ridiculously incoherent post.  You really are a science ignoramuses. I don’t mind knowing little about religious teachings. They are Fairytales. Anyone who uses creationism and science in the same sentence is loonie tunes.

There are endless possibilities for mankind according to science. According to religion there is one fable for each religion that each is locked into. Being that you are uneducated, we’ll take the science POV. It seems your choice is to believe made up shit rather then search for the truth.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> They are Fairytales. Anyone who uses creationism and science in the same sentence is loonie tunes.



The following is no fairy tale and it shows science backs up the Bible with Stonehenge.  It was built post-flood and post-Tower of Babel.  It was built because probably the flood moved the rocks there from about 20 miles away (theory).  Ancient humans could erect a large Tower of Babel so they knew how to erect Stonehenge.

Evolutionists are still trying to figure it out why even they finally found out how in July -- Archaeologists have solved a longstanding mystery about Stonehenge: the origin of the monument's iconic sandstone boulders.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are Fairytales. Anyone who uses creationism and science in the same sentence is loonie tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is no fairy tale and it shows science backs up the Bible with Stonehenge.  It was built post-flood and post-Tower of Babel.  It was built because probably the flood moved the rocks there from about 20 miles away (theory).  Ancient humans could erect a large Tower of Babel so they knew how to erect Stonehenge.
> 
> Evolutionists are still trying to figure it out why even they finally found out how in July -- Archaeologists have solved a longstanding mystery about Stonehenge: the origin of the monument's iconic sandstone boulders.
Click to expand...

That's just so silly. 

Religionists make the most hilarious claims.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you’re angry and emotive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you say that to all the Christian boys.
Click to expand...

All the angry and emotive ones.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are Fairytales. Anyone who uses creationism and science in the same sentence is loonie tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is no fairy tale and it shows science backs up the Bible with Stonehenge.  It was built post-flood and post-Tower of Babel.  It was built because probably the flood moved the rocks there from about 20 miles away (theory).  Ancient humans could erect a large Tower of Babel so they knew how to erect Stonehenge.
> 
> Evolutionists are still trying to figure it out why even they finally found out how in July -- Archaeologists have solved a longstanding mystery about Stonehenge: the origin of the monument's iconic sandstone boulders.
Click to expand...

Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are Fairytales. Anyone who uses creationism and science in the same sentence is loonie tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is no fairy tale and it shows science backs up the Bible with Stonehenge.  It was built post-flood and post-Tower of Babel.  It was built because probably the flood moved the rocks there from about 20 miles away (theory).  Ancient humans could erect a large Tower of Babel so they knew how to erect Stonehenge.
> 
> Evolutionists are still trying to figure it out why even they finally found out how in July -- Archaeologists have solved a longstanding mystery about Stonehenge: the origin of the monument's iconic sandstone boulders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just so silly.
> 
> Religionists make the most hilarious claims.
Click to expand...

They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering absolute none of the universities  in the world agrees with you, none of the medical research facilities, you have little No ground  to stand on.
Click to expand...



So you and your sort have replaced empirical proof with concensus.

Gads, you're a fool.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you’re angry and emotive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you say that to all the Christian boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the angry and emotive ones.
Click to expand...


Not I.  Why should I be angry and emotive over atheists losing perfection and choosing Satan's domain?  Wouldn't you be angry and emotive over that?

It's you who gets all angry and emotive due to your non beliefs religion and its ramifications.  Common sense tells us you would've found something by now like aliens and indestructible rocks and fossils to back up your claims.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?



There are no space aliens because God didn't create them.  Jesus did not die for space aliens and finding one would cause some questioning of this in the Bible.  Of course, no space alien has been found even though liberals and atheists believe in them for no reason.

Moreover, all eyes will see when Jesus comes again on Earth.  They won't be able to see on another planet.  Thus, we probably won't become multiplanetary either.



Dagosa said:


> They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.



God of the gaps is an old Christian concept.  People like Newton were warned not to use God to help them complete their scientific research such as God did the rest or he did his little miracle here.

Liberals and atheists stole the concept during the discussion over the big bang because they were losing their argument.  They also found fine tuning parameters during researching the big bang concept, but eventually discarded their findings because it helped the other side.  These were facts they cast aside.  Thus, the creation scientists have the fine tuning facts now as evidence for God.  Fine tuning means life is finely tuned for Earth and no other place.  It meant evolutionists finally admitted life is rare.  Thus, no space aliens.  See how science backs up the Bible?


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering absolute none of the universities  in the world agrees with you, none of the medical research facilities, you have little No ground  to stand on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you and your sort have replaced empirical proof with concensus.
> 
> Gads, you're a fool.
Click to expand...

I’d call you a fool too, but that would be praise considering your posts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Quote” you moron.....”de-Quote”
> 
> experiments performed by darwin - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, no explanation from Hollie and nothing to demonstrate evolution happens.
> 
> It's too bad fairy tales don't happen in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering absolute none of the universities  in the world agrees with you, none of the medical research facilities, you have little No ground  to stand on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you and your sort have replaced empirical proof with concensus.
> 
> Gads, you're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’d call you a fool too, but that would be praise considering your posts.
Click to expand...




So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?

Got it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you’re angry and emotive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you say that to all the Christian boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the angry and emotive ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not I.  Why should I be angry and emotive over atheists losing perfection and choosing Satan's domain?  Wouldn't you be angry and emotive over that?
> 
> It's you who gets all angry and emotive due to your non beliefs religion and its ramifications.  Common sense tells us you would've found something by now like aliens and indestructible rocks and fossils to back up your claims.
Click to expand...

A Flat Earther trying to discuss common sense is comedy gold.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no space aliens because God didn't create them.  Jesus did not die for space aliens and finding one would cause some questioning of this in the Bible.  Of course, no space alien has been found even though liberals and atheists believe in them for no reason.
> 
> Moreover, all eyes will see when Jesus comes again on Earth.  They won't be able to see on another planet.  Thus, we probably won't become multiplanetary either.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of the gaps is an old Christian concept.  People like Newton were warned not to use God to help them complete their scientific research such as God did the rest or he did his little miracle here.
> 
> Liberals and atheists stole the concept during the discussion over the big bang because they were losing their argument.  They also found fine tuning parameters during researching the big bang concept, but eventually discarded their findings because it helped the other side.  These were facts they cast aside.  Thus, the creation scientists have the fine tuning facts now as evidence for God.  Fine tuning means life is finely tuned for Earth and no other place.  It meant evolutionists finally admitted life is rare.  Thus, no space aliens.  See how science backs up the Bible?
Click to expand...

That’s quite a conspiracy theory.


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which characteristics and instructions we cannot begin to read and understand.
> You will wear out electrical generating stations nationwide responding to Leftists/atheists.   It is futile.
> 
> But on the subject of development, consider that one single cell of a human, or a dog, or a fish, divides into scores of disparate and entirely different cells, from tooth enamel, to bone, to red blood cells, to vitreous humor, to muscle.   Elegant design perhaps forever beyond human comprehension, and to pretend it made itself, beginning with water dripping on rocks..... please.  Stop waving the Atheists' Magic Wand.  Symphonies had composers who were brilliant.  Books had authors.  A>B>C>D doesn't cut it.
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer the simpler/Simpleton waving the God wand.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You prefer a simpleton saying Allah did it


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> A Flat Earther trying to discuss common sense is comedy gold.







You are wrong again as usual.   You show that you are angry and emotive over atheists losing perfection and choosing Satan's domain.  Maybe he'll have a flat hell place for you to stay there.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Flat Earther trying to discuss common sense is comedy gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 369511
> 
> You are wrong again as usual.   You show that you are angry and emotive over atheists losing perfection and choosing Satan's domain.  Maybe he'll have a flat hell place for you to stay there.
Click to expand...

You do come across as angry and emotive when you project your fears and superstitions at others.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no space aliens because God didn't create them.  Jesus did not die for space aliens and finding one would cause some questioning of this in the Bible.  Of course, no space alien has been found even though liberals and atheists believe in them for no reason.
> 
> Moreover, all eyes will see when Jesus comes again on Earth.  They won't be able to see on another planet.  Thus, we probably won't become multiplanetary either.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of the gaps is an old Christian concept.  People like Newton were warned not to use God to help them complete their scientific research such as God did the rest or he did his little miracle here.
> 
> Liberals and atheists stole the concept during the discussion over the big bang because they were losing their argument.  They also found fine tuning parameters during researching the big bang concept, but eventually discarded their findings because it helped the other side.  These were facts they cast aside.  Thus, the creation scientists have the fine tuning facts now as evidence for God.  Fine tuning means life is finely tuned for Earth and no other place.  It meant evolutionists finally admitted life is rare.  Thus, no space aliens.  See how science backs up the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s quite a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


Aliens aren't in the Bible.  That's why atheist scientist, Stephen Hawking, and his Russian billionaire partner put up $100 million to look for aliens, but they haven't found one and Hawking has died already.  He was just like Carl Sagan in that they died before finding aliens despite their evolutionary beliefs.  The billionaire Yuri Miner will give it until 2025 until he calls it quits.  See how evolution doesn't work.  Only God and creation works.

I used to believe we could be multiplanetary, but we can't even live on the moon.  Same with Mars.  You are a simpleton, so you cannot even figure out why we can't.

I even proved you were a simp because you didn't understand what God of the Gaps really meant.

Maybe Dagosa can join you in that flat place we talked about.



Hollie said:


> You do come across as angry and emotive when you project your fears and superstitions at others.



What fears and superstitions are you talking about?  It is all true because it's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.


----------



## james bond

Here it is Hollie and Dagosa.  They are almost at the halfway point and still nothing.  A lot of money and technology, but if God didn't create aliens, then they aren't there.  Evolution is a lie.


----------



## hadit

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...

Better childhood nutrition and medical care can explain that. Consider as well that there are no genetic changes between humans of today and humans of 200 years ago.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no space aliens because God didn't create them.  Jesus did not die for space aliens and finding one would cause some questioning of this in the Bible.  Of course, no space alien has been found even though liberals and atheists believe in them for no reason.
> 
> Moreover, all eyes will see when Jesus comes again on Earth.  They won't be able to see on another planet.  Thus, we probably won't become multiplanetary either.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of the gaps is an old Christian concept.  People like Newton were warned not to use God to help them complete their scientific research such as God did the rest or he did his little miracle here.
> 
> Liberals and atheists stole the concept during the discussion over the big bang because they were losing their argument.  They also found fine tuning parameters during researching the big bang concept, but eventually discarded their findings because it helped the other side.  These were facts they cast aside.  Thus, the creation scientists have the fine tuning facts now as evidence for God.  Fine tuning means life is finely tuned for Earth and no other place.  It meant evolutionists finally admitted life is rare.  Thus, no space aliens.  See how science backs up the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s quite a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens aren't in the Bible.  That's why atheist scientist, Stephen Hawking, and his Russian billionaire partner put up $100 million to look for aliens, but they haven't found one and Hawking has died already.  He was just like Carl Sagan in that they died before finding aliens despite their evolutionary beliefs.  The billionaire Yuri Miner will give it until 2025 until he calls it quits.  See how evolution doesn't work.  Only God and creation works.
> 
> I used to believe we could be multiplanetary, but we can't even live on the moon.  Same with Mars.  You are a simpleton, so you cannot even figure out why we can't.
> 
> I even proved you were a simp because you didn't understand what God of the Gaps really meant.
> 
> Maybe Dagosa can join you in that flat place we talked about.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do come across as angry and emotive when you project your fears and superstitions at others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fears and superstitions are you talking about?  It is all true because it's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.
Click to expand...

All the above is typical slogan-speak that accompanies your emotional outbursts.

Your conspiracy theories about aliens are entertaining but they suggest a maladjusted personality.

Similarly, your slogans about the bibles being science texts are rather odd in that nothing in science supports supernaturalism. 

In a real sense, science is the antidote to religious fears and superstitions as science provides explanations to natural phenomenon. 

It's interesting that although challenged constantly with demonstrating a single, verifiable supernatural event, you continue to sidestep and evade.


----------



## Taz

hadit said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better childhood nutrition and medical care can explain that. Consider as well that there are no genetic changes between humans of today and humans of 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

Humans are still evolving – and scientists don't know why


----------



## Flash

The biggest science fake?

AGW


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here it is Hollie and Dagosa.  They are almost at the halfway point and still nothing.  A lot of money and technology, but if God didn't create aliens, then they aren't there.  Evolution is a lie.


That you troll youtube for information regarding science is comedy gold.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here it is Hollie and Dagosa.  They are almost at the halfway point and still nothing.  A lot of money and technology, but if God didn't create aliens, then they aren't there.  Evolution is a lie.


From the “about” section of your YouTube video:

Hi! Welcome to Beyond Science! This is where I bring you stories of strange, mysterious phenomenons and anything else that is really cool and interesting. My name is Mike Chen and there are a few things I love and those are Food, News, Chinese Culture and Mysterious Phenomenons. Also please check out my other Channel(link on banner) "Strictly Dumpling" where I share my love of food!

Could you maybe post a recipe for dumplings and gravy?

Thanks.


----------



## Dagosa

Flash said:


> The biggest science fake?
> 
> AGW


Actually AGW separates the informed from the ignorant. Congrats. You’re in the second group.


----------



## Flash

Dagosa said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest science fake?
> 
> AGW
> 
> 
> 
> Actually AGW separates the informed from the ignorant. Congrats. You’re in the second group.
Click to expand...


Congratulations you have proven that you have been duped by fake science.

You uneducated idiot Moon Bats claim that man made CO2 levels is changing the climate of the earth but you are too damn stupid to know that at one time the CO2 levels were ten times higher what they are now and the earth was significantly cooler and even in recent times the CO2 levels were lower but the earth was warmer.  You also ignore the significant data that says that CO2 levels lags climate changes, not drive the changes.

If this AGW bullshit story was real then the idiots would not have to create false data like we find them doing all the time.

It would be helpful if you uneducated low information Moon Bats would occasionally pull your heads out of your asses.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no space aliens because God didn't create them.  Jesus did not die for space aliens and finding one would cause some questioning of this in the Bible.  Of course, no space alien has been found even though liberals and atheists believe in them for no reason.
> 
> Moreover, all eyes will see when Jesus comes again on Earth.  They won't be able to see on another planet.  Thus, we probably won't become multiplanetary either.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of the gaps is an old Christian concept.  People like Newton were warned not to use God to help them complete their scientific research such as God did the rest or he did his little miracle here.
> 
> Liberals and atheists stole the concept during the discussion over the big bang because they were losing their argument.  They also found fine tuning parameters during researching the big bang concept, but eventually discarded their findings because it helped the other side.  These were facts they cast aside.  Thus, the creation scientists have the fine tuning facts now as evidence for God.  Fine tuning means life is finely tuned for Earth and no other place.  It meant evolutionists finally admitted life is rare.  Thus, no space aliens.  See how science backs up the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s quite a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens aren't in the Bible.  That's why atheist scientist, Stephen Hawking, and his Russian billionaire partner put up $100 million to look for aliens, but they haven't found one and Hawking has died already.  He was just like Carl Sagan in that they died before finding aliens despite their evolutionary beliefs.  The billionaire Yuri Miner will give it until 2025 until he calls it quits.  See how evolution doesn't work.  Only God and creation works.
> 
> I used to believe we could be multiplanetary, but we can't even live on the moon.  Same with Mars.  You are a simpleton, so you cannot even figure out why we can't.
> 
> I even proved you were a simp because you didn't understand what God of the Gaps really meant.
> 
> Maybe Dagosa can join you in that flat place we talked about.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do come across as angry and emotive when you project your fears and superstitions at others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fears and superstitions are you talking about?  It is all true because it's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the above is typical slogan-speak that accompanies your emotional outbursts.
> 
> Your conspiracy theories about aliens are entertaining but they suggest a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Similarly, your slogans about the bibles being science texts are rather odd in that nothing in science supports supernaturalism.
> 
> In a real sense, science is the antidote to religious fears and superstitions as science provides explanations to natural phenomenon.
> 
> It's interesting that although challenged constantly with demonstrating a single, verifiable supernatural event, you continue to sidestep and evade.
Click to expand...


It's interesting you continue to see me as being angry and emotive.  I've said this many times.  What does God do?  What does Satan do?

I do not have any conspiracy theories about aliens, but I've read the Bible and can figure these things out.  Evolution has to have life in other places because life evolved on Earth.  Thus, atheists and their scientists believe in space aliens.  The Christians and their creation scientists know we have the seven days of creation.  No life beyond that except through natural selection as explained by Alfred Russel Wallace.  No aliens anywhere.

I've also figured out that the supernatural exists along side the natural.  Life itself is supernatural.  There is no abiogenesis or life from non-life.  We continue to live as our life spirit after our physical bodies give out.  Thus, Satan came up with abiogenesis to sucker all the non-believers with fake science. 

As for the rest, you and your posts are wrong as usual.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is Hollie and Dagosa.  They are almost at the halfway point and still nothing.  A lot of money and technology, but if God didn't create aliens, then they aren't there.  Evolution is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> From the “about” section of your YouTube video:
> 
> Hi! Welcome to Beyond Science! This is where I bring you stories of strange, mysterious phenomenons and anything else that is really cool and interesting. My name is Mike Chen and there are a few things I love and those are Food, News, Chinese Culture and Mysterious Phenomenons. Also please check out my other Channel(link on banner) "Strictly Dumpling" where I share my love of food!
> 
> Could you maybe post a recipe for dumplings and gravy?
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Look at the sampling of my audience, you and Dagosa, a couple of non-science idiots.  Probably dumplings would be more your speed.  Just hit follow, so the Mike guy can explain.  I wouldn't touch if it was "Made in China" though.

Anyway, I thought spending $100 million to look for space aliens would make an impact on you.  SETI is now only supported by public donations and probably would not know how to do what these guys did.  NASA still wants to send explorers to Mars and other moons and planets in search of aliens and a new place to live as AGW will render Earth uninhabitable.  They're a bunch of failures, too, if that is their mission.  Atheists and their scientists just do not learn from their opposition.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,you aren’t going to start talking about help from space aliens are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no space aliens because God didn't create them.  Jesus did not die for space aliens and finding one would cause some questioning of this in the Bible.  Of course, no space alien has been found even though liberals and atheists believe in them for no reason.
> 
> Moreover, all eyes will see when Jesus comes again on Earth.  They won't be able to see on another planet.  Thus, we probably won't become multiplanetary either.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They succumb to the old “god of the gaps” notion. Making up shit is a lot easier then doing a little research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of the gaps is an old Christian concept.  People like Newton were warned not to use God to help them complete their scientific research such as God did the rest or he did his little miracle here.
> 
> Liberals and atheists stole the concept during the discussion over the big bang because they were losing their argument.  They also found fine tuning parameters during researching the big bang concept, but eventually discarded their findings because it helped the other side.  These were facts they cast aside.  Thus, the creation scientists have the fine tuning facts now as evidence for God.  Fine tuning means life is finely tuned for Earth and no other place.  It meant evolutionists finally admitted life is rare.  Thus, no space aliens.  See how science backs up the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s quite a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens aren't in the Bible.  That's why atheist scientist, Stephen Hawking, and his Russian billionaire partner put up $100 million to look for aliens, but they haven't found one and Hawking has died already.  He was just like Carl Sagan in that they died before finding aliens despite their evolutionary beliefs.  The billionaire Yuri Miner will give it until 2025 until he calls it quits.  See how evolution doesn't work.  Only God and creation works.
> 
> I used to believe we could be multiplanetary, but we can't even live on the moon.  Same with Mars.  You are a simpleton, so you cannot even figure out why we can't.
> 
> I even proved you were a simp because you didn't understand what God of the Gaps really meant.
> 
> Maybe Dagosa can join you in that flat place we talked about.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do come across as angry and emotive when you project your fears and superstitions at others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fears and superstitions are you talking about?  It is all true because it's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the above is typical slogan-speak that accompanies your emotional outbursts.
> 
> Your conspiracy theories about aliens are entertaining but they suggest a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Similarly, your slogans about the bibles being science texts are rather odd in that nothing in science supports supernaturalism.
> 
> In a real sense, science is the antidote to religious fears and superstitions as science provides explanations to natural phenomenon.
> 
> It's interesting that although challenged constantly with demonstrating a single, verifiable supernatural event, you continue to sidestep and evade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting you continue to see me as being angry and emotive.  I've said this many times.  What does God do?  What does Satan do?
> 
> I do not have any conspiracy theories about aliens, but I've read the Bible and can figure these things out.  Evolution has to have life in other places because life evolved on Earth.  Thus, atheists and their scientists believe in space aliens.  The Christians and their creation scientists know we have the seven days of creation.  No life beyond that except through natural selection as explained by Alfred Russel Wallace.  No aliens anywhere.
> 
> I've also figured out that the supernatural exists along side the natural.  Life itself is supernatural.  There is no abiogenesis or life from non-life.  We continue to live as our life spirit after our physical bodies give out.  Thus, Satan came up with abiogenesis to sucker all the non-believers with fake science.
> 
> As for the rest, you and your posts are wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

It’s not unfair to point out you’re being angry and emotive when you’re angry and emotive.

Still no evidence of any supernaturalism you can offer? That’s a shame. You preach supernaturalism yet you can’t offer any evidence.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is Hollie and Dagosa.  They are almost at the halfway point and still nothing.  A lot of money and technology, but if God didn't create aliens, then they aren't there.  Evolution is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> From the “about” section of your YouTube video:
> 
> Hi! Welcome to Beyond Science! This is where I bring you stories of strange, mysterious phenomenons and anything else that is really cool and interesting. My name is Mike Chen and there are a few things I love and those are Food, News, Chinese Culture and Mysterious Phenomenons. Also please check out my other Channel(link on banner) "Strictly Dumpling" where I share my love of food!
> 
> Could you maybe post a recipe for dumplings and gravy?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the sampling of my audience, you and Dagosa, a couple of non-science idiots.  Probably dumplings would be more your speed.  Just hit follow, so the Mike guy can explain.  I wouldn't touch if it was "Made in China" though.
> 
> Anyway, I thought spending $100 million to look for space aliens would make an impact on you.  SETI is now only supported by public donations and probably would not know how to do what these guys did.  NASA still wants to send explorers to Mars and other moons and planets in search of aliens and a new place to live as AGW will render Earth uninhabitable.  They're a bunch of failures, too, if that is their mission.  Atheists and their scientists just do not learn from their opposition.
Click to expand...


As usual, you’re lashing out as angry and emotive.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> Humans are still evolving – and scientists don't know why



There is no evolutionary genetics nor beneficial mutations.  Another BS article.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You preach supernaturalism yet you can’t offer any evidence.



Supernaturalism is right in front of your nose.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are still evolving – and scientists don't know why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evolutionary genetics nor beneficial mutations.  Another BS article.
Click to expand...

Does religionism always inspire ignorance?


*Claim CB101:*
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.



			CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
		


*Source:*
Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

*Response:*

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.


Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).


High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).


Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You preach supernaturalism yet you can’t offer any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supernaturalism is right in front of your nose.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That’s why you respond with emotional outbursts when you fail to support your nonsense claims.


----------



## james bond

PoliticalChic said:


> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?



Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You preach supernaturalism yet you can’t offer any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supernaturalism is right in front of your nose.
Click to expand...

Geez, you have a super low threshold for "proof".


----------



## PoliticalChic

james bond said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
Click to expand...



Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:

That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Aliens aren't in the Bible


Indeed they are. The Holy Ghost is not a common representative of persons on earth, neither is any God. Both are represented in the Bible. You’d have us believe there is a god of the entire universe of billions of objects yet ours and man  is the only species  he’s primarily concerned with, and only when he is naked and can tell what sex “he” is. How special are these “ aliens ?” And Satan(s)  ? He’s/she is alien unless you think they are led  by OAC.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
Click to expand...

So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
Click to expand...

So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?


Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?


Boy, speaking of morons ! 
You use that word a lot yourself, then wonder why we don’t “ prove” 
a theory. It’s called a theory because it is not proven Science. You’re a confused little puppy. You do know “quantum theory“ isn’t proven either. But you still have a cell phone, internet etc that all depends upon it.
Now pretend your cell phone was made by Dr  Apple from the planet Oz...instead of science.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)
Click to expand...

Says the scaredy cat who won't say what she would prefer to Darwinism. I know, you're embarrassed.


----------



## Dagosa

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the scaredy cat who won't say what she would prefer to Darwinism. I know, you're embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Her alternative is a lot more moronic then science.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the scaredy cat who won't say what she would prefer to Darwinism. I know, you're embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her alternative is a lot more moronic then science.
Click to expand...




Hurry up now......get that proof!!!

Chop chop!!!!


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
Click to expand...

So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange  version of Christianity you believe  in. They all believe in stupid stuff.


----------



## tyroneweaver

rightwinger said:


> Complex creatures evolved from simple creatures
> 
> Undeniable FACT (Unless you are Home Skooled)


Ya I know what ya mean. I get better looking  every day.
Around here they  call me WK.  (woman Killer)


----------



## Rye Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


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








						Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
					






					www.freerepublic.com
				






			The Cambrian Period
		


Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the scaredy cat who won't say what she would prefer to Darwinism. I know, you're embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her alternative is a lot more moronic then science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hurry up now......get that proof!!!
> 
> Chop chop!!!!
Click to expand...

C'mon NKChic, let's hear your whacky theory that's instead of evolution.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rye Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freerepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.
Click to expand...




When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.

The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!


And he admitted it, you moron.

*"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*


. *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”



Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


*There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
A true imbecile.*


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freerepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.
> 
> The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!
> 
> 
> And he admitted it, you moron.
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> *There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
> A true imbecile.*
Click to expand...

So where did all these animals come from?


----------



## ChemEngineer

*“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!” - Jun-yuan Chen, Paleontologist

Darwinists succumb to the theory that if you want to criticize a theory you ought to offer something better. This is a complete error. It doesn’t hold water. There is no duty to put something better in its place. It is the best-in-field fallacy. – Darwin's Enigma, by Luther Sunderland, page 40

Karl Marx had no scientific basis for his atheism until Darwin came along. Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Kapital, to Darwin. – p 125*


----------



## Dagosa

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the scaredy cat who won't say what she would prefer to Darwinism. I know, you're embarrassed.
Click to expand...

She’s afraid that she and trump had the same orange chimp ancestor.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> *“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!” - Jun-yuan Chen, Paleontologist
> 
> Darwinists succumb to the theory that if you want to criticize a theory you ought to offer something better. This is a complete error. It doesn’t hold water. There is no duty to put something better in its place. It is the best-in-field fallacy. – Darwin's Enigma, by Luther Sunderland, page 40
> 
> Karl Marx had no scientific basis for his atheism until Darwin came along. Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Kapital, to Darwin. – p 125*


The gargantuan text adds that’s sense of urgency and melodrama to your cutting and pasting.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa can't find how he's going to use fake science and evolve next.  Maybe he'll blast himself to Mars and mutate into a space alien.  The first human Martian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give credit where it is due: the single more successful and most efficient agency of big government is government school:
> 
> That dunce is an example of how indelible the indoctrination is.
> 
> View attachment 369530
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you’re anti public education ? Who then should have decided thE curriculum ? David Koresh types ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still can't find any proof of Darwinism?
> 
> 
> Keep lookin'..... (how to keep an idiot in suspense.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the scaredy cat who won't say what she would prefer to Darwinism. I know, you're embarrassed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her alternative is a lot more moronic then science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hurry up now......get that proof!!!
> 
> Chop chop!!!!
Click to expand...

The confirmation is obvious. You and Trump think alike and have the same orange monkey ancestor.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freerepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.
> 
> The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!
> 
> 
> And he admitted it, you moron.
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> *There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
> A true imbecile.*
Click to expand...


How stereotypical. All the same phony, edited and fraudulent “quotes”



Another fraud.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists(http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)





No link to _Nature_ exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists



Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freerepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.
> 
> The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!
> 
> 
> And he admitted it, you moron.
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> *There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
> A true imbecile.*
Click to expand...


Here we have another of the fraudulent “quotes” that the dishonest religionist dumps into multiple threads.





__





						Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				





> To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.





> The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.


Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.

Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.

Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freerepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the rest of the story.  The takeaway, never ever trust PC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are as dumb as you are, you post things like the above.
> 
> The Cambrium Period proves Darwin WRONG!!!
> 
> 
> And he admitted it, you moron.
> 
> *"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> 
> “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> *There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
> A true imbecile.*
Click to expand...




Here we see the dishonest religionists tactic of selectively editing a “quote” in order to try and represent the author's intent as something else.

*



			Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
		
Click to expand...

*
Here is the fuller context:
*These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?*

_On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties._ As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.


----------



## abu afak

`







`


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> *Hurry up now......get that proof!!!
> 
> Chop chop!!!!*


*And that's what confirms your Dishonesty.
You can Never Prove god, even much worse, never even show Hard EVIDENCE of it.
Evolution OTOH, has Overwhelming evidence.
I suppose that's why you Never put up/Admit YOUR PHONY BELIEF in Biblical Literalism/YEC.

You can never defend, even admit your BS belief in Haysoos!
Because you cannot, and you know it.

Even in the unlikely event there's a god, at least 75% of believers are wrong about which one.
But of course, they're all made up, including 7/11 Adventism. 

Politic Sheik, LYING/FRAUD-for-laughable-Biblical-Literalism. (she won't admit)*


`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are still evolving – and scientists don't know why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evolutionary genetics nor beneficial mutations.  Another BS article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does religionism always inspire ignorance?
> 
> 
> *Claim CB101:*
> Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
> 
> 
> 
> *Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
> 
> The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
> Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
> Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
> Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
> A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
> Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
> In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
> 
> Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
> 
> 
> High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
> 
> 
> Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
Click to expand...


Another copy and paste job that you've done before.  I asked you to explain it in your own words back then, but you couldn't do it.  Can you do it now?

Generally speaking, evolutionists are confused over mutations and information.   The evolutionist claims through natural selection the mutant form _gradually_, over many generations, takes over the population.  Yet,  such a process has never been shown, neither theoretically nor observationally, to lead to the addition of any new information in the genome.

Another failure on your part Hollie.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> Geez, you have a super low threshold for "proof".



You farkin' idiot.  How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science.  It's best theory you stupid POS .

We all see different types of living things every day and it was created by God.  That is the only way it can happen.  We can observe the universe, Earth, and everything in it and it was created by God in seven days.  There is no other way.  Evolution claims there is, but there is no evidence of big bang nor abiogenesis.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment showed only life begats life and God created life.  That makes the life spirit supernatural.  Ours will live forever.  Mine in heaven.  Yours in the other place as we've discussed before.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Indeed they are. The Holy Ghost is not a common representative of persons on earth, neither is any God. Both are represented in the Bible.



You are terribly confused.  The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, i.e. one God.  They are not space aliens.  Who lives in the middle heavens, i.e. in outer space just above our atmosphere (lower space).



Dagosa said:


> You’d have us believe there is a god of the entire universe of billions of objects yet ours and man is the only species he’s primarily concerned with, and only when he is naked and can tell what sex “he” is. How special are these “ aliens ?” And Satan(s) ? He’s/she is alien unless you think they are led by OAC.



Haha.  What?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.



Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud



Haha.  She called you a moron.


----------



## percysunshine

Poly water and cold fusion.


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, you have a super low threshold for "proof".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You farkin' idiot.  How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science.  It's best theory you stupid POS .
> 
> We all see different types of living things every day and it was created by God.  That is the only way it can happen.  We can observe the universe, Earth, and everything in it and it was created by God in seven days.  There is no other way.  Evolution claims there is, but there is no evidence of big bang nor abiogenesis.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment showed only life begats life and God created life.  That makes the life spirit supernatural.  Ours will live forever.  Mine in heaven.  Yours in the other place as we've discussed before.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot of fartsmoke in one post, even for you! What proof do you have that everything was made by an invisible being in 7 days? And do you have a link to that Pasteur experiment that shows that god created life? And proof of hell please. I'll wait.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are still evolving – and scientists don't know why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evolutionary genetics nor beneficial mutations.  Another BS article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does religionism always inspire ignorance?
> 
> 
> *Claim CB101:*
> Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
> 
> 
> 
> *Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
> 
> The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
> Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
> Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
> Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
> A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
> Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
> In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
> 
> Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
> 
> 
> High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
> 
> 
> Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another copy and paste job that you've done before.  I asked you to explain it in your own words back then, but you couldn't do it.  Can you do it now?
> 
> Generally speaking, evolutionists are confused over mutations and information.   The evolutionist claims through natural selection the mutant form _gradually_, over many generations, takes over the population.  Yet,  such a process has never been shown, neither theoretically nor observationally, to lead to the addition of any new information in the genome.
> 
> Another failure on your part Hollie.
Click to expand...

More of your tirades. Your lack of study in the science fields leaves you at a disadvantage.

The process of evolution has been observed so your claim otherwise is just more denial that plagues the hyoer-religious.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  She called you a moron.
Click to expand...

Haha that's the best religious extremists can offer.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
Click to expand...

Branch davidians, Mormons are not from my clan. They’re all true believers in Christianity. Own it.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> You farkin' idiot. How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science. It's best theory you


Ah. The true Christian who is commanded to life a Christ like existence in harmony with his brethren, compassion and no ill will.
“Farkin idiot?” Is that an example of true Christianity ? Sure as fk ain’t you.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
Click to expand...

You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> You farkin' idiot (Taz).  How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science.  It's best theory you stupid POS.



But James, he's cool.  Check the sunglasses, flowing hair and condescending look at you.  Chicks want him, bad..... [Snork, snork]  Five to on he's either single or divorced.  

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, whose books I critiqued and sent to his publisher.  They forwarded them to Carl who replied to me by letter, ignoring his errors, and asking me to buy his newest book.  I sold his letter on eBay for $125.  Agnostic Carl is a believer now you betcha.  His memorial service was held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  She called you a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha that's the best religious extremists can offer.
Click to expand...


I still thought it was hilarious.  You make a great comedy duo.  She's the smart comedy person while you're the straight woman.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  She called you a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha that's the best religious extremists can offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still thought it was hilarious.  You make a great comedy duo.  She's the smart comedy person while you're the straight woman.
Click to expand...

Haha, but you’re easily amused.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You farkin' idiot (Taz).  How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science.  It's best theory you stupid POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But James, he's cool.  Check the sunglasses, flowing hair and condescending look at you.  Chicks want him, bad..... [Snork, snork]  Five to on he's either single or divorced.
> 
> "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, whose books I critiqued and sent to his publisher.  They forwarded them to Carl who replied to me by letter, ignoring his errors, and asking me to buy his newest book.  I sold his letter on eBay for $125.  Agnostic Carl is a believer now you betcha.  His memorial service was held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.
Click to expand...

Ain’t it great that posting on an anonymous message board means you can be a hero in your own mind, you betcha’.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, you have a super low threshold for "proof".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You farkin' idiot.  How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science.  It's best theory you stupid POS .
> 
> We all see different types of living things every day and it was created by God.  That is the only way it can happen.  We can observe the universe, Earth, and everything in it and it was created by God in seven days.  There is no other way.  Evolution claims there is, but there is no evidence of big bang nor abiogenesis.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment showed only life begats life and God created life.  That makes the life spirit supernatural.  Ours will live forever.  Mine in heaven.  Yours in the other place as we've discussed before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that's a lot of fartsmoke in one post, even for you! What proof do you have that everything was made by an invisible being in 7 days? And do you have a link to that Pasteur experiment that shows that god created life? And proof of hell please. I'll wait.
Click to expand...


Jeez, another atheist moron who wants _proof_ when all the evidence has been already given such as mountain of evidence that the creation scientists have presented.

God said everything will be settled here on Earth.  Professor Lawrence Krauss, an atheist, said, " Now, it would be easy to have evidence for God. If the stars rearrange themselves tonight and I looked up tonight—well not here, but in a place where you could see the stars, in Arizona, say,—and I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange themselves say, “I am here.”

That same week, another atheist, a regular person, said the people in the southern hemisphere would not see the "I am here" stars and thus that wasn't good enough.  He said all the atheists past, present, and future would have to see.  His comments made front page news in the SF - Bay Area news.  To me, that was the greatest thing an atheist ever said.  I thought atheists would have to experience pain and suffering in hell to be convinced; It would be the only proof.

Later, I learned that God had already given an answer to the atheist in the Bible with _all eyes will see_.  "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." Revelation 1:7

If I were an atheist, that would be all the proof I needed to be convinced that I was wrong.  It means everything will be settled on Earth.

Just that prophecy written thousands of years ago by God would be _proof_ enough for me. It answers the greatest thing an atheist ever said.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  She called you a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha that's the best religious extremists can offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still thought it was hilarious.  You make a great comedy duo.  She's the smart comedy person while you're the straight woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, but you’re easily amused.
Click to expand...


It just so happened the right people were involved.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
Click to expand...


It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.


----------



## Pappadave1

Taz said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
Click to expand...

MORE likely "devolving."  Humans are OMNIVORES...not herbivores.  Stop and think for a second or two.  Which are smarter, herbivores or carnivores?  The answer is obvious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> If he actually told the truth, he's go broke.


No, sorry. He can never say another word and continue to get rich off of royalties from his excellent books. That's a luxury that renowned scientists enjoy.


----------



## Dagosa

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You farkin' idiot (Taz).  How many times do I have to tell you there are no "proofs" in science.  It's best theory you stupid POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But James, he's cool.  Check the sunglasses, flowing hair and condescending look at you.  Chicks want him, bad..... [Snork, snork]  Five to on he's either single or divorced.
> 
> "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, whose books I critiqued and sent to his publisher.  They forwarded them to Carl who replied to me by letter, ignoring his errors, and asking me to buy his newest book.  I sold his letter on eBay for $125.  Agnostic Carl is a believer now you betcha.  His memorial service was held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.
Click to expand...

Ha ha...where is the evidence ?


----------



## Pappadave1

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

Actually untrue. The story of creation was written by POETS...not scientists...and was originally a verbal explanation of creation for the benefit of largely unlettered, illiterate people.  The sequence of events described are NOT that incompatible with the Big Bang theory.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything in six days. So humans and and dinosaurs roamed the earth together ?
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

So humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs ?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Pappadave1 said:


> MORE likely "devolving."  Humans are OMNIVORES...not herbivores.  Stop and think for a second or two.  Which are smarter, herbivores or carnivores?  The answer is obvious.



Excellent point, Pappa.  This reminds me of a great tee shirt I just saw for the first time yesterday.

*"I DIDN'T FIGHT THIS HARD TO MOVE UP THE FOOD CHAIN ONLY TO ... STOP EATING MEAT"*

Shrimp, lobster, scallops, filet mignon, cheeseburger...   Ain't no comparison between those and a pile of vegetables.


----------



## fncceo

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything in six days. So humans and and dinosaurs roamed the earth together ?
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs ?
Click to expand...


Of course...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything in six days. So humans and and dinosaurs roamed the earth together ?
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course...
> View attachment 370056
Click to expand...

Little did that evil family of sinners know that God was about to murder them with a flood.


----------



## Dagosa

fncceo said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything in six days. So humans and and dinosaurs roamed the earth together ?
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course...
> View attachment 370056
Click to expand...

That makes sense. The Bible is little more then a cartoon.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
Click to expand...

Christians have feces for brains ?


----------



## james bond

Pappadave1 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually untrue. The story of creation was written by POETS...not scientists...and was originally a verbal explanation of creation for the benefit of largely unlettered, illiterate people.  The sequence of events described are NOT that incompatible with the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.  God wrote the Bible; It was God breathed and even states so in the Bible.  The Bible was transcribed by different peoples from all walks of life through divine inspiration.  How else could it be so correct?  Then there is no evidence for what you claim comparing the Bible to the bullshit of evolution.  Evolution contradicts everything God wrote, so the false science writers were likely inspired by Satan.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything in six days. So humans and and dinosaurs roamed the earth together ?
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs ?
Click to expand...


The dinos didn't turn into birds.  Humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time.  Evolution just made up their timelines.  The dinosaurs and humans were wiped out by the flood.  The dino fossils are found near the water's edge.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Little did that evil family of sinners know that God was about to murder them with a flood.



It was punishment for their sins.  The humans had become so evil that the innocent weren't safe anymore.  We appear to be heading towards the same fate this time by fire.  It's hard to imagine how humans could become so evil, but we have diverse and powerful weapons among our nations.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Christians have feces for brains ?



No, it's in your head but would be appropriate to smear all over your face and wherever it leaked out.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have feces for brains ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's in your head but would be appropriate to smear all over your face and wherever it leaked out.
Click to expand...

Huh ? What ever that means. Branch Davidians  and Mormans are devout Christians aren’t they?


----------



## Dagosa

Pappadave1 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.
> 
> One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females.  Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old.  Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all evolution, just like I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved towards a healthier lifestyle and now I'm a vegetarian. That's another example of someone evolving, and it's following down my family tree as my children don't eat meat either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE likely "devolving."  Humans are OMNIVORES...not herbivores.  Stop and think for a second or two.  Which are smarter, herbivores or carnivores?  The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...

And the obvious answer is  ? What ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time


Seriously ? Do you mean to say that dinosaurs existed just a few thousand years ago ? Like, Adam and Eve and  T  Rex where cavorting for the same Apple ?

What about all those little charts showing temperature extremes millions of years ago that you guys used to argue against  global warming...was that all Fake, or is what you’re saying now fake ? Or, more likely, you guys are all FOS.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Pappadave1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your god came from Mars, as was it the Branch Davidians, or the Mormans It’s hard tell which strange version of Christianity you believe in. They all believe in stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism has led you to looney tunes land.  It sounds like you're talking about your family of Branch Davidians, Mormans (sic), and those that believe in stupid shit because they have feces for brains like you and your relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re no Christian with language and posts like that . You’re a fraud hanging on to ignorance because somehow, you slept in the back row during bio classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change what God created in 7 days.  That is a much better explanation for everything than big bang and abiogenesis.  Everything that God said in the Bible has been contradicted by Evolution.  That could not be a coincidence.  The atheists and their scientists had to get rid of their opposition from peer reviews in order to achieve it.  Thus, you believe in lies and fake science and why the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually untrue. The story of creation was written by POETS...not scientists...and was originally a verbal explanation of creation for the benefit of largely unlettered, illiterate people.  The sequence of events described are NOT that incompatible with the Big Bang theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  God wrote the Bible; It was God breathed and even states so in the Bible.  The Bible was transcribed by different peoples from all walks of life through divine inspiration.  How else could it be so correct?  Then there is no evidence for what you claim comparing the Bible to the bullshit of evolution.  Evolution contradicts everything God wrote, so the false science writers were likely inspired by Satan.
Click to expand...

If your gods wrote the Bible, can we assume your gods lied about the tales and fables of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Fred and Jose’?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little did that evil family of sinners know that God was about to murder them with a flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was punishment for their sins.  The humans had become so evil that the innocent weren't safe anymore.  We appear to be heading towards the same fate this time by fire.  It's hard to imagine how humans could become so evil, but we have diverse and powerful weapons among our nations.
Click to expand...

That presents a problem. As you claim your gods designed A&E (not the cable station), your gods’ design had a flaw. They designed imperfect humans. It seems rather petty that your gods would punish all of humanity for their incompetent design.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he actually told the truth, he's go broke.
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. He can never say another word and continue to get rich off of royalties from his excellent books. That's a luxury that renowned scientists enjoy.
Click to expand...

Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he actually told the truth, he's go broke.
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. He can never say another word and continue to get rich off of royalties from his excellent books. That's a luxury that renowned scientists enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, personally, i don't turn to Dawkins for analysis of mythology. 

But he certainly has a lot to teach about biology. Here is an excellent video of Dawkins explaining, in terms children can understand, how complex structures can evolve over time, using the evolution of the eye as an example:


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he actually told the truth, he's go broke.
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. He can never say another word and continue to get rich off of royalties from his excellent books. That's a luxury that renowned scientists enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. Well, personally, i don't turn to Dawkins for analysis of mythology.
> 
> But he certainly has a lot to teach about biology. Here is an excellent video of Dawkins explaining, in terms children can understand, how complex structures can evolve over time, using the evolution of the eye as an example:
Click to expand...

Yes...into one of millions of male/female pairs that will produce yet more male/female pairs.
Do you ever use your brain?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Indeependent said:


> Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.



The purpose of life, according to Richard Dawkins. He is FAILING at it and failing very miserably.
Listen and learn how miserably Dawkins and his fellow atheists are FAILING.  It's hilarious science at its best.


----------



## Indeependent

ChemEngineer said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of life, according to Richard Dawkins. He is FAILING at it and failing very miserably.
> Listen and learn how miserably Dawkins and his fellow atheists are FAILING.  It's hilarious science at its best.
Click to expand...

Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Indeependent said:


> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.



One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
Click to expand...

That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how boring you are?
Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
Click to expand...

I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
*How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
Click to expand...

Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
Click to expand...

I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.

*How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
Click to expand...

Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.

Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
Click to expand...

Easy...God can anything.

But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
*How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
Click to expand...


“God (the gods- ed.), is (are -ed.) the all-knowing being(s) who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess..._because I said so._


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
Click to expand...


You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”

You forgot to add: “because I say so”


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
Click to expand...

Why do you think there is more that one God?
Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
The atheist god is science.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
Click to expand...

Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
Click to expand...

Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
How old were you?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
Click to expand...

I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
You can't make this bullshit up.
One of your gods is the Internet.

Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
How old were you?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
> I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
> You can't make this bullshit up.
> One of your gods is the Internet.
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
Click to expand...

Religions have been around for millions of years? Even before there were people to invent them?

Fascinating!

Tell us more, please.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
> I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
> You can't make this bullshit up.
> One of your gods is the Internet.
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions have been around for millions of years? Even before there were people to invent them?
> 
> Fascinating!
> 
> Tell us more, please.
Click to expand...

I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
Hindus also worship all living creatures.
The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.

Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.

I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
> Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
> Hindus also worship all living creatures.
> The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
> Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.
> Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
> Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.
> 
> I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.


You're a LYING Full of **** Orthoducks CULTIST Clown. The stupidest religionist/cultist in America.
An embarrassment to us scientifically literate/superior secular and atheist Jews.
Still waiting for your (LIE) *Orthodachshund* Nobel winners.





__





						Hindu views on evolution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"..Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures.[5] For example, the concept of Dashavatara can be seen as having some similarities to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.The first incarnation of Vishnu in the form of a fish resembles the evolutionary origin of fish in the Silurian Period.​​*In a survey of 909 people, 77% of its respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85% of God-believing people said they agree with evolution as well.[6][7] According to the survey conducted by Pew Forum in the United States, 80% of Hindus agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth.[8].."*​
`


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
> I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
> You can't make this bullshit up.
> One of your gods is the Internet.
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions have been around for millions of years? Even before there were people to invent them?
> 
> Fascinating!
> 
> Tell us more, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
> Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
> Hindus also worship all living creatures.
> The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
> Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.
> 
> Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
> Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.
> 
> I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.
Click to expand...

I see you are dancing around your false claims. The Hindu may believe their gods existed before human history. 

Nothing at all about billions of years, It's in bad form for you to invent the histories of other peoples gods.


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
> Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
> Hindus also worship all living creatures.
> The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
> Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.
> Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
> Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.
> 
> I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a LYING Full of **** Orthoducks CULTIST Clown. The stupidest religionist/cultist in America.
> An embarrassment to us scientifically literate/superior secular and atheist Jews.
> Still waiting for your (LIE) *Orthodachshund* Nobel winners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hindu views on evolution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures.[5] For example, the concept of Dashavatara can be seen as having some similarities to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.The first incarnation of Vishnu in the form of a fish resembles the evolutionary origin of fish in the Silurian Period.​​*In a survey of 909 people, 77% of its respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85% of God-believing people said they agree with evolution as well.[6][7] According to the survey conducted by Pew Forum in the United States, 80% of Hindus agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth.[8].."*​
> `
Click to expand...

Did I upset your fragile ego?
Oh, India!
The land of 1,000 Castes where over 99% of the population shits in the street...cool.
Or...
Oh, India!  Where they worship cows and anything that moves.
Or...
Oh, India!  Where the educational system is so good they are desperate to come to US univeristies.

Yeah, you're really pulling out the all the intellectually *superior *stops now.

Feeling stupid yet?
Or are you too stupid to know that you just made an intellectual a$$ out of yourself.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
> I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
> You can't make this bullshit up.
> One of your gods is the Internet.
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions have been around for millions of years? Even before there were people to invent them?
> 
> Fascinating!
> 
> Tell us more, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
> Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
> Hindus also worship all living creatures.
> The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
> Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.
> 
> Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
> Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.
> 
> I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are dancing around your false claims. The Hindu may believe their gods existed before human history.
> 
> Nothing at all about billions of years, It's in bad form for you to invent the histories of other peoples gods.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you don't do any research on any subject.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
> I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
> You can't make this bullshit up.
> One of your gods is the Internet.
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions have been around for millions of years? Even before there were people to invent them?
> 
> Fascinating!
> 
> Tell us more, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
> Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
> Hindus also worship all living creatures.
> The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
> Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.
> 
> Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
> Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.
> 
> I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are dancing around your false claims. The Hindu may believe their gods existed before human history.
> 
> Nothing at all about billions of years, It's in bad form for you to invent the histories of other peoples gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't do any research on any subject.
Click to expand...

You could have admitted you posted nonsense and were called out on it.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of countless reasons atheists have to be bitter and antagonistic and call you profane names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a real hate-fest you have going. Declare the gee-had is on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how boring you are?
> Do you realize that cleaning up dirt that hasn't had a chance to evolve is murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was simply commenting on how the hyper-religious were in a bit of a lather as they played their game of one-upsmanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the nonsense of evolution.
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> Of course you will make believe you don't know what my question is.
> On the other hand, you are probably dumber than a Flat-Earther.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your hate-fest has everything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a direct contradiction to your 6,000 year old planet and claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained why the earth is not 6,000 years old and, as usual, your hate filled ego is void of anything that anyone posts that is contrary to your ideology.
> And don't dare say I didn't explain it because that will simply prove what a dumb sack of shit you are.
> God is the all-knowing being who created all the knowledge that His creatures possess.
> 
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> What *you* are suggesting is magic and well beyond coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard.
> 
> Why did the gods invent polychaete worms that reproduce asexually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...God can anything.
> 
> But...my question was asked several days ago and you can't provide a logical answer so you keep diverting from the main issue...
> *How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to write “the gods can do anything.”
> 
> You forgot to add: “because I say so”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is more that one God?
> Because some egoists decided to create a god for each of their desires?
> Like Eros, for sexually aroused people?
> The atheist god is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think there is only one god? Lots of gods (consortiums of unionized gods), have come and gone before the invention of your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew my last post would cause you to skedaddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.
> What religions have proof that they've been around for millions of years?
> I hear the Hindus claim to have a book from the gods but they can't produce it for carbon dating because they threw it into a volcano.
> You can't make this bullshit up.
> One of your gods is the Internet.
> 
> Were you abused by a priest or a nun?
> How old were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions have been around for millions of years? Even before there were people to invent them?
> 
> Fascinating!
> 
> Tell us more, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are critiquing a subject you have never researched.
> Hindus, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist they have been in existence for billions of years.
> Hindus also worship all living creatures.
> The Chinese, who represent, oh, about a 1/5th of the world's population, insist non-Chinese came from other planets.
> Christianity and Islam are overt rip-offs of Judaism, which claims people have been around for almost 7,000 years.
> 
> Judaism believes there is *a* God and all we want is for people to leave us alone.
> Christianity and Islam believe there is one God.
> 
> I have to presume that your "gods" complex comes from watching too many movies filmed in India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you are dancing around your false claims. The Hindu may believe their gods existed before human history.
> 
> Nothing at all about billions of years, It's in bad form for you to invent the histories of other peoples gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't do any research on any subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could have admitted you posted nonsense and were called out on it.
Click to expand...

Uh...no.
You just didn't bother to look up their ludicrous claims.


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> I see you are dancing around your false claims. The Hindu may believe their gods existed before human history.
> 
> Nothing at all about billions of years, It's in bad form for you to invent the histories of other peoples gods.


You never have to worry about debating an Orthodox on anything but the Talmud.
They know NOTHING.
Independent just rambles/Fabricates on, Never citing any sources/links.
A complete non-intellect who can be defeated with any 10-second google.

`


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are dancing around your false claims. The Hindu may believe their gods existed before human history.
> 
> Nothing at all about billions of years, It's in bad form for you to invent the histories of other peoples gods.
> 
> 
> 
> You never have to worry about debating an Orthodox on anything but the Talmud.
> They know NOTHING.
> Independent just rambles/Fabricates on, Never citing any sources/links.
> A complete non-intellect who can be defeated in any 10-second google.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

And what did you just quote?
A survey from a shithole nation?
An opinion piece!
I'm glad to know you consider an opinion a fact.


----------



## Dagosa

Indeependent said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of life, according to Richard Dawkins. He is FAILING at it and failing very miserably.
> Listen and learn how miserably Dawkins and his fellow atheists are FAILING.  It's hilarious science at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
Click to expand...

Jesus, most Christians seem to be interested in multiple wives and wedding underaged children while having sex with little boys. And then there’s Trump.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> And what did you just quote?
> *A survey from a shithole nation?
> An opinion piece!
> I'm glad to know you consider an opinion a fact.*


*The Topic WAS "OPINION" you 12 IQ ASSHOLE.
YOU said what Indians/Hindus thought/believed.

I Busted that you LYING POS.

You REMAIN TOO STUPID TO DEBATE.*
`
`


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what did you just quote?
> *A survey from a shithole nation?
> An opinion piece!
> I'm glad to know you consider an opinion a fact.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Topic WAS "OPINION" you 12 IQ ASSHOLE.
> YOU said what Indians/Hindus thought/believed.
> 
> I Busted that you LYING POS.
> 
> You REMAIN TOO STUPID TO DEBATE.*
> `
> `
Click to expand...

Uh...
I said what *religious *Hindus believe and you posted a non-sequitur.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?


I see. So what you are asking is how sexual reproduction evolved. If you use big boy words, this will all be much quicker.

So, before you waste everyone's time...have you tried to look this up? Because you can look this up. Did you try to look this up, found the explanations way too complicated, and so came here to beg someone to explain it to you like you are 5 years old? Because that is the only valid reason i can see for anyone bothering to spoonfeed you the answer to your question.


----------



## Indeependent

Dagosa said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Dawkins' YouTube videos are proof that he makes up and manipulates verses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of life, according to Richard Dawkins. He is FAILING at it and failing very miserably.
> Listen and learn how miserably Dawkins and his fellow atheists are FAILING.  It's hilarious science at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most atheists I have met have one child to take care of them when their partying days are over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus, most Christians seem to be interested in multiple wives and wedding underaged children while having sex with little boys. And then there’s Trump.
Click to expand...

Most?
I know that's the


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did all of those single celled, non-sexual creatures become millions of male/female pairs?
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So what you are asking is how sexual reproduction evolved. If you use big boy words, this will all be much quicker.
> 
> So, before you waste everyone's time...have you tried to look this up? Because you can look this up. Did you try to look this up, found the explanations way too complicated, and so came here to beg someone to explain it to you like you are 5 years old? Because that is the only valid reason i can see for anyone bothering to spoonfeed you the answer to your question.
Click to expand...

I can't answer a question for which no answer exists.
Since you believe this nonsense, it's up to *you *to convince *me *by providing an answer.
After almost a week, I know *none *of you EvolutionBots can find an answer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I can't answer a question for which no answer exists.





Indeependent said:


> I can't answer a question for which no answer exists.


So you have looked up the best answer we have, and you think it is wrong. Great! Nobody has to spend time spoonfeeding it to you, then.

So...what's wrong with it? What is lacking? You don't have to prove it wrong; that's not what i am asking. If i have to convince you it's the best answer, i need to know what would convince you.

So sexual reproduction is believed almost certainly to have evolved in early eukaryotes, where meiosis was first observed.

No meiosis observed -> meiosis observed -> sexually reproducing species observed

Seems to be in the right order. Take any one of those out of order, and evolution theory has a problem. 

But you're not buying it. Why?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? What ever that means. Branch Davidians and Mormans are devout Christians aren’t they?



It means the feces in your head continues to leak out as you are still discussing religion in the S&T forum.   Let's give up on you and say you are a shitz for brainz dunderhead in science.  Creation science and I get a score of 100% while atheist science and you get a score of 0%.  Just believing in AGW with no evidence gives you a zero.



Dagosa said:


> Seriously ? Do you mean to say that dinosaurs existed just a few thousand years ago ? Like, Adam and Eve and T Rex where cavorting for the same Apple ?



The evidence for dinosaurs existing thousands of years ago with humans is the soft tissue still remaining in the fossils.  Furthermore, we can still do radiocarbon dating on the dinosaur fossils (which could not be done if they were millions of years old) and they're around 10,000 years old.  It goes to show humans and dinosaurs lived together on a young Earth.



Dagosa said:


> What about all those little charts showing temperature extremes millions of years ago that you guys used to argue against global warming...was that all Fake, or is what you’re saying now fake ? Or, more likely, you guys are all FOS.



Basically, there is no evidence that humans are the cause of AGW.  The Earth is not warming as the atheists, liberals, and their scientists have claimed.  We still have periods of warming and cooling.  The facts show warming of about  0.72-1.44 °F over the last 100 years.  Also,  water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels. Thus, the facts also show humans aren't to blame for the slight warming.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> If your gods wrote the Bible, can we assume your gods lied about the tales and fables of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Fred and Jose’?



I said God wrote the Bible and you are also wrong about God lying.  It is Satan who rebelled, contradicted what God said, and lied with his Antibible of Evolution written by a variety of atheist scientists over 1500 years.  As follows, science backs up the Bible while there is no scientific method to evolution.



Hollie said:


> That presents a problem. As you claim your gods designed A&E (not the cable station), your gods’ design had a flaw. They designed imperfect humans. It seems rather petty that your gods would punish all of humanity for their incompetent design.



No, God created Adam and Eve.  There was no flaw as they were perfect and the world was perfect.  However, God gave them free will as he didn't want robots that he would have to command.  They only had to not do one thing and that was to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Today, God gives us a positive test of believing in Jesus as our Savior.  However, many fail this test due to their free will.  Thus, God set it up so that we will know our results with the tribulations after the second coming of Jesus.


----------



## Blackrook

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
Click to expand...

No, we have more meat in our diet.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh ? What ever that means. Branch Davidians and Mormans are devout Christians aren’t they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the feces in your head continues to leak out as you are still discussing religion in the S&T forum.   Let's give up on you and say you are a shitz for brainz dunderhead in science.  Creation science and I get a score of 100% while atheist science and you get a score of 0%.  Just believing in AGW with no evidence gives you a zero.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ? Do you mean to say that dinosaurs existed just a few thousand years ago ? Like, Adam and Eve and T Rex where cavorting for the same Apple ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for dinosaurs existing thousands of years ago with humans is the soft tissue still remaining in the fossils.  Furthermore, we can still do radiocarbon dating on the dinosaur fossils (which could not be done if they were millions of years old) and they're around 10,000 years old.  It goes to show humans and dinosaurs lived together on a young Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all those little charts showing temperature extremes millions of years ago that you guys used to argue against global warming...was that all Fake, or is what you’re saying now fake ? Or, more likely, you guys are all FOS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, there is no evidence that humans are the cause of AGW.  The Earth is not warming as the atheists, liberals, and their scientists have claimed.  We still have periods of warming and cooling.  The facts show warming of about  0.72-1.44 °F over the last 100 years.  Also,  water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels. Thus, the facts also show humans aren't to blame for the slight warming.
Click to expand...

You guys continually amaze  me by your ignorance. Seriously, you can’t get hired at any institute of higher learning, any related corporation, any government agency and make these stupid claims about evolution or AGW.  You guys are a laughing stock. Not among your equally dumb brethren, but really smart eight graders .


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Creation science an


Keep reminding yourself as a science illiterate, that there is NO SUCH THING as creation science.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You guys continually amaze me by your ignorance. Seriously, you can’t get hired at any institute of higher learning, any related corporation, any government agency and make these stupid claims about evolution or AGW. You guys are a laughing stock. Not among your equally dumb brethren, but really smart eight graders .



There are people in the universities that believe like I do.  There are creation scientists in universities who believe in God and creation.  They just have to keep a low profile.  I work in a government agency and there are people who laugh at the scientists who believe in AGW.  It's not a serious science problem, but a political one.  Liberals like you are just stupid buffoons.  I would say the people who believe in AGW are the laughing stock.  Not when the facts are against them.  Most of us here realized you are too stupid to realize what the facts I pointed out like water vapor as the most influential greenhouse gas and minute changes in temperature over 100 years mean.  You can be ignored because you are a ignoramus.



Dagosa said:


> Keep reminding yourself as a science illiterate, that there is NO SUCH THING as creation science.



And in the next breath, you go from ignoramus to moron to idiot.  Like I said science does not back up evolution.  There is absolutely no science behind it whatsoever except for natural selection (Alfred Russel Wallace's version preferred).


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your gods wrote the Bible, can we assume your gods lied about the tales and fables of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Fred and Jose’?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said God wrote the Bible and you are also wrong about God lying.  It is Satan who rebelled, contradicted what God said, and lied with his Antibible of Evolution written by a variety of atheist scientists over 1500 years.  As follows, science backs up the Bible while there is no scientific method to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That presents a problem. As you claim your gods designed A&E (not the cable station), your gods’ design had a flaw. They designed imperfect humans. It seems rather petty that your gods would punish all of humanity for their incompetent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, God created Adam and Eve.  There was no flaw as they were perfect and the world was perfect.  However, God gave them free will as he didn't want robots that he would have to command.  They only had to not do one thing and that was to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Today, God gives us a positive test of believing in Jesus as our Savior.  However, many fail this test due to their free will.  Thus, God set it up so that we will know our results with the tribulations after the second coming of Jesus.
Click to expand...

It's a nonsense claim that your gods wrote the bible. 

I'm not clear where you got your invented tales of A&E but regarding Genesis fable,  the facts are that your gods lied and satan told the truth.

What else have you gods lied to you about?


----------



## Taz

Blackrook said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we have more meat in our diet.
Click to expand...

It’s still evolution no matter what the cause.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> There are people in the universities that believe like I do.


Ha ha
There are a small number of people who are crazy who attend every  universities, of course.
But you totally miss the point. Collectively when you look at the universities  of the wold, none have adopted your POV in final consensus . That’s where the 97% comes in. You’re arguing that that the small minority of lunatics are smarter then the work done by the vast majority of the smartest people on earth in any one science  fields. Get real. At universities,EVERYONES ideas are considered but on,y those what pass the muster of follow work using the scientific method, are adopted by these facilities.

NONE of your crazy ideas are. Even Evangelical or other religious backed schools   of higher learning can’t back these ideas officially backed and still remain accredited. You’re a fringe element.

Go for it.
Check out Duke, BYU, southern Methodist, ND  and a plethora of other religious backed schools and check their positions on the accredited courses the teach and offer, they  all teach  evolution in their accredited courses for graduation and certification.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science an
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reminding yourself as a science illiterate, that there is NO SUCH THING as creation science.
Click to expand...



Wow!

Your sort really gets snarky when their indoctrination is revealed.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science an
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reminding yourself as a science illiterate, that there is NO SUCH THING as creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Your sort really gets snarky when their indoctrination is revealed.
Click to expand...

Your sort is rather starved for meaningful content absent dumping the same phony ''quotes'' you litter every thread with.


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science an
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reminding yourself as a science illiterate, that there is NO SUCH THING as creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Your sort really gets snarky when their indoctrination is revealed.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as science creation, creation science or any way you want to play woo woo with your words. ....deal with it. Creationism is not science. Illiteracy comes in all forms. Your’s  is definitely in science.


----------



## Bobob

PoliticalChic said:


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


Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bobob said:


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




Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?

“But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4. 
The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions


----------



## Bobob

PoliticalChic said:


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

Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled. 
The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bobob said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
> An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?
> 
> “But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.
> The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
> He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled.
> The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
> so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.
Click to expand...




So you're still voting for Soleimani????


----------



## Bobob

PoliticalChic said:


> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
> An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?
> 
> “But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.
> The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
> He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled.
> The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
> so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're still voting for Soleimani????
Click to expand...

Trump is a danger to our democracy, so Mickey mouse will do it for me.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bobob said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
> An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?
> 
> “But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.
> The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
> He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled.
> The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
> so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're still voting for Soleimani????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is a danger to our democracy, so Mickey mouse will do it for me.
Click to expand...



Actually, your deep and abiding ignorance is the danger.



Bet you hear that a lot.


----------



## Bobob

PoliticalChic said:


> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
> An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?
> 
> “But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.
> The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
> He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled.
> The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
> so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're still voting for Soleimani????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is a danger to our democracy, so Mickey mouse will do it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your deep and abiding ignorance is the danger.
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you hear that a lot.
Click to expand...

Yes, from uninformed and uneducated Trump supporters because that is all they know.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bobob said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
> An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?
> 
> “But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.
> The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
> He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled.
> The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
> so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're still voting for Soleimani????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is a danger to our democracy, so Mickey mouse will do it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your deep and abiding ignorance is the danger.
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, from uninformed and uneducated Trump supporters because that is all they know.
Click to expand...




So, in November, this will be the program for which you will cast your support:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

See if you recognize the similarity in this Margaret Mead, anthropologist, quote: *The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.

One wonders, if she were still alive, what her views of this Democrat Party would be.*


----------



## Bobob

PoliticalChic said:


> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Add Trump to the list of liars that lie to make a point. He thinks that he knows more than the medical community.
> An investor in the "H" drug company and I would not be surprised if he owned stock in Lysol, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 'medical community' to which you refer be the one that reversed it's advice every other day?
> 
> “But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.
> The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump did not close the borders. He closed the border to the Chinese, who he is using as a re-election tool.
> He did not close the borders to 2 million Europeans, who flooded Kennedy and Newark airports and spread the virus as they traveled.
> The medical community, to which I refer, changed its recommendations as new information on the virus was analyzed. Let's remember that this virus is very new and very different from the flu. Trump operates with his "gut"
> so he doesn't follow the advice given since he thinks he knows more than the doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're still voting for Soleimani????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is a danger to our democracy, so Mickey mouse will do it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your deep and abiding ignorance is the danger.
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, from uninformed and uneducated Trump supporters because that is all they know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in November, this will be the program for which you will cast your support:
> 
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> See if you recognize the similarity in this Margaret Mead, anthropologist, quote: *The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.
> 
> One wonders, if she were still alive, what her views of this Democrat Party would be.*
Click to expand...

Heavens to Mergatroid!


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> There are a small number of people who are crazy who attend every universities, of course.



There are plenty of Christian universities that teach creation science you nincompoop -- Colleges & Universities That Believe or Teach Biblical Creation.  I just hit a line drive off Eckersley's shitface and he is bleeding and oozing feces out of his skull.  Didn't I say you are wrong?  How many times do I have to say it?  Let's face it.  It will never get through your shit for brainz.

It's a shame more Christian universities do not teach creation science as evolutionary science has systematically eliminated the creation scientists from peer reviews.  Still, there are students in both Christian and secular universities who can think for themselves and question how evolution can be right and real science?   They may end up learning about the fine tuning facts, the chicken coming before the egg, soft tissue still remaining in dinosaur fossils, and more.



Dagosa said:


> NONE of your crazy ideas are. Even Evangelical or other religious backed schools of higher learning can’t back these ideas officially backed and still remain accredited. You’re a fringe element.
> 
> Go for it.
> Check out Duke, BYU, southern Methodist, ND and a plethora of other religious backed schools and check their positions on the accredited courses the teach and offer, they all teach evolution in their accredited courses for graduation and certification.



Why should I go for it?  It's up to you to back up your claims?  Where is the evidence for those schools you shithead?



It's not my ideas and they aren't crazy as they are God's.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> There are plenty of Christian universities that teach creation science you nincompoop -- College


Wrong. You obviously didn’t read not do you do any research. . You seem to know little about college offerings. There are courses necessary  toward a degree, then there are electives.
BTW there is no fking thing as creation science. Don’t be a dufus. If you get a med degree form BYC, it’s only taking accepted courses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM .


Look it up. “Creation science” is FAKE...it’s a pseudo science.....that’s fake science for you non readers.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> It's not my ideas and they aren't crazy as they are God's.


You make this totally insane statement and you can’t even back it up. Which God out of the eight or nine are you talking about ? And if it’s a Christian god, is it catholic or even moderate Protestant MOST OF WHOM BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. You born agains are a minority thankfully. Otherwise we’d be a third world country. There would be no computers, cars or enough food to feed everyone without  science.

GEESUS, FOR THE Gazillionth   time, you are alive today because the foods we eat and the vaccines we use are all developed though evolution theory dufus. Because you’re not aware is not anyone else fault but yours.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana




----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Wrong. You obviously didn’t read not do you do any research. . You seem to know little about college offerings. There are courses necessary toward a degree, then there are electives.
> BTW there is no fking thing as creation science. Don’t be a dufus. If you get a med degree form BYC, it’s only taking accepted courses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM .



You do you not provide a link, so I figure you do not know.  I gave you my link on colleges that offer creation science courses, but all you do is ad hominem.  Thus, you are a loser and not knowledgeable about science as I said.  Otherwise, you would have a link or links to the Christian colleges you mentioned.  BTW I went to:




Moreover, you still do not know about creation science when I provided the link.  There are others such as Answers in Genesis and creation.com.  The founder of AIG, Ken Ham, debated atheist layman Bill Nye and mopped the floor with him.  It was for a good cause as it raised enough money to complete the Ark Encounter.  Why I mention this to a closed minded idiot, I do not know.  Actually, it's to inform others of this forum who appreciate real science and not fall for science of the atheists (which you cannot provide information about).  That's two strikes against you.

Finally, I know you didn't go to BYC and probably was lucky to finish high school.  Otherwise, you would be able to back up your statements.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You make this totally insane statement and you can’t even back it up. Which God out of the eight or nine are you talking about ? And if it’s a Christian god, is it catholic or even moderate Protestant MOST OF WHOM BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. You born agains are a minority thankfully. Otherwise we’d be a third world country. There would be no computers, cars or enough food to feed everyone without science.
> 
> GEESUS, FOR THE Gazillionth time, you are alive today because the foods we eat and the vaccines we use are all developed though evolution theory dufus. Because you’re not aware is not anyone else fault but yours.



Haha.  Still making a fool out of yourself.  This is the science forum and not religion as I said for the third time now.  You just do not understand religion either.  I am Christian and am a YEC.  Anyway, I'll give you one final chance to show how you know about those Christian colleges and what they teach for science?  Why don't they teach creation science?  Give me at least one link and can learn what these colleges teach which you supposedly know.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make this totally insane statement and you can’t even back it up. Which God out of the eight or nine are you talking about ? And if it’s a Christian god, is it catholic or even moderate Protestant MOST OF WHOM BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. You born agains are a minority thankfully. Otherwise we’d be a third world country. There would be no computers, cars or enough food to feed everyone without science.
> 
> GEESUS, FOR THE Gazillionth time, you are alive today because the foods we eat and the vaccines we use are all developed though evolution theory dufus. Because you’re not aware is not anyone else fault but yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Still making a fool out of yourself.  This is the science forum and not religion as I said for the third time now.  You just do not understand religion either.  I am Christian and am a YEC.  Anyway, I'll give you one final chance to show how you know about those Christian colleges and what they teach for science?  Why don't they teach creation science?  Give me at least one link and can learn what these colleges teach which you supposedly know.
Click to expand...

Stop with the shit. There is no such thing as “creation  science”. You’re science illiterate. Creationism is a religious made up story line. Science is based upon evidence. It’s not made up shit.  You guys can’t even use a dictionary can you ? Schools like BYU have to keep the money rolling in from religious fanatics so they have their little museums to pretend religion and science are related. But they don’t teach creationism in degreed  science courses. WhaT the fk is a YEC ? If it’s a science forum, YOU stop trying to throw religion in then and pretending it’s a science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha
> There are a small number of people who are crazy who attend every universities, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of Christian universities that teach creation science you nincompoop -- Colleges & Universities That Believe or Teach Biblical Creation.  I just hit a line drive off Eckersley's shitface and he is bleeding and oozing feces out of his skull.  Didn't I say you are wrong?  How many times do I have to say it?  Let's face it.  It will never get through your shit for brainz.
> 
> It's a shame more Christian universities do not teach creation science as evolutionary science has systematically eliminated the creation scientists from peer reviews.  Still, there are students in both Christian and secular universities who can think for themselves and question how evolution can be right and real science?   They may end up learning about the fine tuning facts, the chicken coming before the egg, soft tissue still remaining in dinosaur fossils, and more.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of your crazy ideas are. Even Evangelical or other religious backed schools of higher learning can’t back these ideas officially backed and still remain accredited. You’re a fringe element.
> 
> Go for it.
> Check out Duke, BYU, southern Methodist, ND and a plethora of other religious backed schools and check their positions on the accredited courses the teach and offer, they all teach evolution in their accredited courses for graduation and certification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I go for it?  It's up to you to back up your claims?  Where is the evidence for those schools you shithead?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my ideas and they aren't crazy as they are God's.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding. The fraud of Christian fundamentalism under the burqa of creation science is what has removed creationism from peer review.

The charlatans at the Disco'tute can submit their data supporting a 6,000 year old planet for peer review. That will be be difficult, of course, as charlatans do no research.


Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.

As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility. 










Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha
> There are a small number of people who are crazy who attend every universities, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of Christian universities that teach creation science you nincompoop -- Colleges & Universities That Believe or Teach Biblical Creation.  I just hit a line drive off Eckersley's shitface and he is bleeding and oozing feces out of his skull.  Didn't I say you are wrong?  How many times do I have to say it?  Let's face it.  It will never get through your shit for brainz.
> 
> It's a shame more Christian universities do not teach creation science as evolutionary science has systematically eliminated the creation scientists from peer reviews.  Still, there are students in both Christian and secular universities who can think for themselves and question how evolution can be right and real science?   They may end up learning about the fine tuning facts, the chicken coming before the egg, soft tissue still remaining in dinosaur fossils, and more.
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of your crazy ideas are. Even Evangelical or other religious backed schools of higher learning can’t back these ideas officially backed and still remain accredited. You’re a fringe element.
> 
> Go for it.
> Check out Duke, BYU, southern Methodist, ND and a plethora of other religious backed schools and check their positions on the accredited courses the teach and offer, they all teach evolution in their accredited courses for graduation and certification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I go for it?  It's up to you to back up your claims?  Where is the evidence for those schools you shithead?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my ideas and they aren't crazy as they are God's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not understanding. The fraud of Christian fundamentalism under the burqa of creation science is what has removed creationism from peer review.
> 
> The charlatans at the Disco'tute can submit their data supporting a 6,000 year old planet for peer review. That will be be difficult, of course, as charlatans do no research.
> 
> 
> Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.
> 
> As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:
> 
> Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
> 
> A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
> Discovery Institute
> 
> As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t take much science to dismiss creationism. The churches that support religious based universities that teach evolution have to walk  the line of denial.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You obviously didn’t read not do you do any research. . You seem to know little about college offerings. There are courses necessary toward a degree, then there are electives.
> BTW there is no fking thing as creation science. Don’t be a dufus. If you get a med degree form BYC, it’s only taking accepted courses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do you not provide a link, so I figure you do not know.  I gave you my link on colleges that offer creation science courses, but all you do is ad hominem.  Thus, you are a loser and not knowledgeable about science as I said.  Otherwise, you would have a link or links to the Christian colleges you mentioned.  BTW I went to:
> View attachment 371737
> 
> Moreover, you still do not know about creation science when I provided the link.  There are others such as Answers in Genesis and creation.com.  The founder of AIG, Ken Ham, debated atheist layman Bill Nye and mopped the floor with him.  It was for a good cause as it raised enough money to complete the Ark Encounter.  Why I mention this to a closed minded idiot, I do not know.  Actually, it's to inform others of this forum who appreciate real science and not fall for science of the atheists (which you cannot provide information about).  That's two strikes against you.
> 
> Finally, I know you didn't go to BYC and probably was lucky to finish high school.  Otherwise, you would be able to back up your statements.
Click to expand...

Laughable post.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Stop with the shit. There is no such thing as “creation science”. You’re science illiterate. Creationism is a religious made up story line. Science is based upon evidence. It’s not made up shit. You guys can’t even use a dictionary can you ? Schools like BYU have to keep the money rolling in from religious fanatics so they have their little museums to pretend religion and science are related. But they don’t teach creationism in degreed science courses. WhaT the fk is a YEC ? If it’s a science forum, YOU stop trying to throw religion in then and pretending it’s a science.



Haha.  That's it.  You did not post one decent reply to my questions and points.  It means you are a failure in science.  You should just stick to your looney tunes and sports forums.  I doubt you know anything about sports either which leaves looney tunes.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
> Discovery Institute



I keep telling you over and over that DI and ID is not the same as Christians and creation science.  I suppose you didn't watch Dr. Ken Ham whip fake science guy Bill Nye in 2014.  The debate made money for AIG and it was enough to get Ark Encounter off the ground -- Life-size Noah’s Ark next to the Creation Museum.  It came after I became born again Christian in 2012 and after much of evolution was questioned and pretty much destroyed from 2007 - 2011 science articles.

Creation scientists do not want to go back to the moon in order to try and live there.  Do you know why?  It may not be feasible for a refueling station for space stations and satellite repair.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
> Discovery Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep telling you over and over that DI and ID is not the same as Christians and creation science.  I suppose you didn't watch Dr. Ken Ham whip fake science guy Bill Nye in 2014.  The debate made money for AIG and it was enough to get Ark Encounter off the ground -- Life-size Noah’s Ark next to the Creation Museum.  It came after I became born again Christian in 2012 and after much of evolution was questioned and pretty much destroyed from 2007 - 2011 science articles.
> 
> Creation scientists do not want to go back to the moon in order to try and live there.  Do you know why?  It may not be feasible for a refueling station for space stations and satellite repair.
Click to expand...


DI and ID, religionism, etc,, is the same as Christians and creation science.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You obviously didn’t read not do you do any research. . You seem to know little about college offerings. There are courses necessary toward a degree, then there are electives.
> BTW there is no fking thing as creation science. Don’t be a dufus. If you get a med degree form BYC, it’s only taking accepted courses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do you not provide a link, so I figure you do not know.  I gave you my link on colleges that offer creation science courses, but all you do is ad hominem.  Thus, you are a loser and not knowledgeable about science as I said.  Otherwise, you would have a link or links to the Christian colleges you mentioned.  BTW I went to:
> View attachment 371737
> 
> Moreover, you still do not know about creation science when I provided the link.  There are others such as Answers in Genesis and creation.com.  The founder of AIG, Ken Ham, debated atheist layman Bill Nye and mopped the floor with him.  It was for a good cause as it raised enough money to complete the Ark Encounter.  Why I mention this to a closed minded idiot, I do not know.  Actually, it's to inform others of this forum who appreciate real science and not fall for science of the atheists (which you cannot provide information about).  That's two strikes against you.
> 
> Finally, I know you didn't go to BYC and probably was lucky to finish high school.  Otherwise, you would be able to back up your statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laughable post.
Click to expand...


He who laughs last laughs best.  I said it was "BYC" on purpose because you called it BYC.  What school is that?  It's really BYU isn't it?  Isn't that what you meant?  I mean when was it called BYC?

Are you really that old?  I was thinking we're around the same age, mid 50s, but are you over 70?  Someone I know said the only people who watch MLB and follow it are over 70.  I laughed, but then thought about you and your Eckersley avatar after logging on.  Haha.

Anyway, if you're a senior, then I understand that you can't back up your opinions.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You obviously didn’t read not do you do any research. . You seem to know little about college offerings. There are courses necessary toward a degree, then there are electives.
> BTW there is no fking thing as creation science. Don’t be a dufus. If you get a med degree form BYC, it’s only taking accepted courses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do you not provide a link, so I figure you do not know.  I gave you my link on colleges that offer creation science courses, but all you do is ad hominem.  Thus, you are a loser and not knowledgeable about science as I said.  Otherwise, you would have a link or links to the Christian colleges you mentioned.  BTW I went to:
> View attachment 371737
> 
> Moreover, you still do not know about creation science when I provided the link.  There are others such as Answers in Genesis and creation.com.  The founder of AIG, Ken Ham, debated atheist layman Bill Nye and mopped the floor with him.  It was for a good cause as it raised enough money to complete the Ark Encounter.  Why I mention this to a closed minded idiot, I do not know.  Actually, it's to inform others of this forum who appreciate real science and not fall for science of the atheists (which you cannot provide information about).  That's two strikes against you.
> 
> Finally, I know you didn't go to BYC and probably was lucky to finish high school.  Otherwise, you would be able to back up your statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laughable post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who laughs last laughs best.  I said it was "BYC" on purpose because you called it BYC.  What school is that?  It's really BYU isn't it?  Isn't that what you meant?  I mean when was it called BYC?
> 
> Are you really that old?  I was thinking we're around the same age, mid 50s, but are you over 70?  Someone I know said the only people who watch MLB and follow it are over 70.  I laughed, but then thought about you and your Eckersley avatar after logging on.  Haha.
> 
> Anyway, if you're a senior, then I understand that you can't back up your opinions.
Click to expand...

Glad you’re having fun becoming a spelling expert when your delusional ideas are exposed. Creation science is fraudulent.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You obviously didn’t read not do you do any research. . You seem to know little about college offerings. There are courses necessary toward a degree, then there are electives.
> BTW there is no fking thing as creation science. Don’t be a dufus. If you get a med degree form BYC, it’s only taking accepted courses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do you not provide a link, so I figure you do not know.  I gave you my link on colleges that offer creation science courses, but all you do is ad hominem.  Thus, you are a loser and not knowledgeable about science as I said.  Otherwise, you would have a link or links to the Christian colleges you mentioned.  BTW I went to:
> View attachment 371737
> 
> Moreover, you still do not know about creation science when I provided the link.  There are others such as Answers in Genesis and creation.com.  The founder of AIG, Ken Ham, debated atheist layman Bill Nye and mopped the floor with him.  It was for a good cause as it raised enough money to complete the Ark Encounter.  Why I mention this to a closed minded idiot, I do not know.  Actually, it's to inform others of this forum who appreciate real science and not fall for science of the atheists (which you cannot provide information about).  That's two strikes against you.
> 
> Finally, I know you didn't go to BYC and probably was lucky to finish high school.  Otherwise, you would be able to back up your statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laughable post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who laughs last laughs best.  I said it was "BYC" on purpose because you called it BYC.  What school is that?  It's really BYU isn't it?  Isn't that what you meant?  I mean when was it called BYC?
> 
> Are you really that old?  I was thinking we're around the same age, mid 50s, but are you over 70?  Someone I know said the only people who watch MLB and follow it are over 70.  I laughed, but then thought about you and your Eckersley avatar after logging on.  Haha.
> 
> Anyway, if you're a senior, then I understand that you can't back up your opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Glad you’re having fun becoming a spelling expert when your delusional ideas are exposed. Creation science is fraudulent.
Click to expand...


Heh.  I knew you were an old geezer over 70.  Too _senile_ to back up your opinions. Many seniors are not, but those are the smart ones who live enriched lives and understand basic science and medicine. They know an apple a day helps keep the doctor away. They don't confuse BYU for BYC like you and lie about it; they'll admit their mistakes and correct it or not not do it the next time (learn from it). Not you though haha.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> Of interest is that Darwin himself thought the Haeckel vertebrate embryo diagrams were the greatest evidence for his theory…..not the fossil record, which he admitted did not support him.
> 
> Haeckel’s diagram is fake, and known from early on that it was a fake…..yet Darwinists continue to use it in school and in textbooks.
> Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see the fabrication:
> 
> 
> View attachment 354813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernst Haeckel's Phony Embryo Drawings
> 
> 
> Ernst Haeckel    Ernst Haeckel  (1834-1919) was a German zoologist and physician, who discovered thousands of biological species and help...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.acts17.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP:
> The Most Famous Fakes In Biology
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.





Today, August 9th is the day Haeckel died.

*Ernst Haeckel*, in full* Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel*, (born Feb. 16, 1834, Potsdam, Prussia [Germany]—died Aug. 9, 1919, Jena, Ger.), German zoologist and evolutionist who was a strong proponent of Darwinism and who proposed new notions of the evolutionary descent of human beings. He declared that ontogeny (the embryology and development of the individual) briefly, and sometimes necessarily incompletely, recapitulated, or repeated, phylogeny (the developmental history of the species or race). 
Britannica.com


He produced the fake drawings that supposedly showed the close relationship between vertebrate embryos.....a bogus series of drawings used to this day in government school to advance another bogus thesis.....Darwin's theory. 


In addition, he was an early Nazi.
"Haeckel believed in nordic racial superiority, strenuously opposed race mixing and enthusiastically supported racial eugenics. Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism and imperialism…he fulminated in antisemitic tones…played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement.” 
Eco Fascism / Fascist Ideology : the Green Wing of the Nazi Party and Its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier | Nazism | Nazi Germany


----------



## Hollie

One prayer away from the Dark Ages.











						Christian Science - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Christian Science* is a set of beliefs associated with members of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Adherents are commonly known as Christian Scientists or students of Christian Science,[5] and the church is sometimes informally known as the Christian Science church.[_citation needed_] It originated in 19th-century New England with Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book _Science and Health_ that sickness can be healed by prayer.[n 2] The book became Christian Science's central text, along with the Bible, and by 2001 had sold over nine million copies.[6]


----------



## Dagosa

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of interest is that Darwin himself thought the Haeckel vertebrate embryo diagrams were the greatest evidence for his theory…..not the fossil record, which he admitted did not support him.
> 
> Haeckel’s diagram is fake, and known from early on that it was a fake…..yet Darwinists continue to use it in school and in textbooks.
> Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see the fabrication:
> 
> 
> View attachment 354813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernst Haeckel's Phony Embryo Drawings
> 
> 
> Ernst Haeckel    Ernst Haeckel  (1834-1919) was a German zoologist and physician, who discovered thousands of biological species and help...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.acts17.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP:
> The Most Famous Fakes In Biology
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, August 9th is the day Haeckel died.
> 
> *Ernst Haeckel*, in full* Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel*, (born Feb. 16, 1834, Potsdam, Prussia [Germany]—died Aug. 9, 1919, Jena, Ger.), German zoologist and evolutionist who was a strong proponent of Darwinism and who proposed new notions of the evolutionary descent of human beings. He declared that ontogeny (the embryology and development of the individual) briefly, and sometimes necessarily incompletely, recapitulated, or repeated, phylogeny (the developmental history of the species or race).
> Britannica.com
> 
> 
> He produced the fake drawings that supposedly showed the close relationship between vertebrate embryos.....a bogus series of drawings used to this day in government school to advance another bogus thesis.....Darwin's theory.
> 
> 
> In addition, he was an early Nazi.
> "Haeckel believed in nordic racial superiority, strenuously opposed race mixing and enthusiastically supported racial eugenics. Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism and imperialism…he fulminated in antisemitic tones…played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement.”
> Eco Fascism / Fascist Ideology : the Green Wing of the Nazi Party and Its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier | Nazism | Nazi Germany
Click to expand...

Off with his head !


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> One prayer away from the Dark Ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian Science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Christian Science* is a set of beliefs associated with members of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Adherents are commonly known as Christian Scientists or students of Christian Science,[5] and the church is sometimes informally known as the Christian Science church.[_citation needed_] It originated in 19th-century New England with Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book _Science and Health_ that sickness can be healed by prayer.[n 2] The book became Christian Science's central text, along with the Bible, and by 2001 had sold over nine million copies.[6]


Yup.
Christian Science is no more science then a rubber duck is a real duck.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> As a think tank


I started laughing to hard to continue reading. The only things this "think tank" does are produce embarrassingly incorrect blogs and organize events to brainwash children.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a think tank
> 
> 
> 
> I started laughing to hard to continue reading. The only things this "think tank" does are produce embarrassingly incorrect blogs and organize events to brainwash children.
Click to expand...



OMG!!!!!

_Like fingernails on a blackboard._

"I started laughing to (sic) hard to continue reading."

English isn't my first language.....but I know it should be "I started laughing too hard to continue reading."


The lack of education certainly explains your posts.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a think tank
> 
> 
> 
> I started laughing to hard to continue reading. The only things this "think tank" does are produce embarrassingly incorrect blogs and organize events to brainwash children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!!!
> 
> _Like fingernails on a blackboard._
> 
> "I started laughing to (sic) hard to continue reading."
> 
> English isn't my first language.....but I know it should be "I started laughing too hard to continue reading."
> 
> 
> The lack of education certainly explains your posts.
Click to expand...


OMG!!!!

Are you struggling to find a “quote” at Harun Yahya you can plagiarize?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a think tank
> 
> 
> 
> I started laughing to hard to continue reading. The only things this "think tank" does are produce embarrassingly incorrect blogs and organize events to brainwash children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!!!
> 
> _Like fingernails on a blackboard._
> 
> "I started laughing to (sic) hard to continue reading."
> 
> English isn't my first language.....but I know it should be "I started laughing too hard to continue reading."
> 
> 
> The lack of education certainly explains your posts.
Click to expand...

Well, since I am not an embarrassing little copypasta plagiarizer like you are, sometimes typos happen...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a think tank
> 
> 
> 
> I started laughing to hard to continue reading. The only things this "think tank" does are produce embarrassingly incorrect blogs and organize events to brainwash children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!!!
> 
> _Like fingernails on a blackboard._
> 
> "I started laughing to (sic) hard to continue reading."
> 
> English isn't my first language.....but I know it should be "I started laughing too hard to continue reading."
> 
> 
> The lack of education certainly explains your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, since I am not an embarrassing little copypasta plagiarizer like you are, sometimes typos happen...
Click to expand...



Plagiarize????

Only Liberals do that......


Let's get this straight, and, at the same time, reveal yet another of your lies.

1. I never plagiarize: I always link and source quotes I use to construct an unchallengeable thread.....as you've found.

2. You, and every Liberal, plagiarize in every post.
You quote Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.

3. I only have about a hundred thousand posts......surely you can find an example of me plagiarizing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Plagiarize????


Yes, absolutely. If there is one thing you have shown, it's that you couldn't argue any of these points in your own words if your life depended on it. You are clearly a moron who doesn't even understand what he is copy/pasting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiarize????
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, absolutely. If there is one thing you have shown, it's that you couldn't argue any of these points in your own words if your life depended on it. You are clearly a moron who doesn't even understand what he is copy/pasting.
Click to expand...



First you required a lesson on the meaning of 'too' vs 'to.'

Now you show you don't understand the word 'plagiarize.'

You're a perfect example of your sort......stupid folks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> First you required a lesson on the meaning of 'too' vs 'to.'


Not really, but I think we can all agree this is about the only positive your dumb ass can take from any of your spam threads lately.


PoliticalChic said:


> Now you show you don't understand the word 'plagiarize.'


Absolutely I do, and you would have failed out of college immediately for plagiarism. You couldn't summarize any of these arguments in your own words if your life depended on it. One can pretend to be many things on the internet... "smart" and "educated" are not two of them. As your spam threads show in sharp relief.


----------



## Quasar44

PoliticalChic said:


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


 Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out


----------



## badbob85037

PoliticalChic said:


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


I though you were going for  the laws of science and nature vs what Bush told us about 9\11.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Quasar44 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
Click to expand...



How about these 'HS drop outs'....


. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)

75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull

20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660


This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."


----------



## PoliticalChic

badbob85037 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> I though you were going for  the laws of science and nature vs what Bush told us about 9\11.
Click to expand...



"I though (sic) you were going for  the laws of science and nature vs what Bush told us about 9\11."


Your clever response loses something when you can't spell 'thought.'


----------



## Quasar44

PoliticalChic said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
Click to expand...

If you cannot accept the facts of genes,DNA, fossil record etc - then you are just a peon


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
Click to expand...

You are making yourself look even more stupid and dishonest by posting this. But you are too stupid to realize it.

If the authority or credentials of scientists mattered to you at all, you would have long ago accepted evolutionary theory. So, in short, you paused from calling all the scientists liars and incompetent to argue to the authority of a small handful of scientists.

You, of course, are far too stupid and shallow to understand that you are embarrassing yourself by doing this.


----------



## Quasar44

You’re a science illiterate and a religious nut job


----------



## PoliticalChic

Quasar44 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you cannot accept the facts of genes,DNA, fossil record etc - then you are just a peon
Click to expand...



There are no facts related to Darwin's theory....


So say these folks:

Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)

75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull

20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660


This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you cannot accept the facts of genes,DNA, fossil record etc - then you are just a peon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are no facts related to Darwin's theory....
> 
> 
> So say these folks:
> 
> Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
Click to expand...

Haha...you just did it again. Ya moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are making yourself look even more stupid and dishonest by posting this. But you are too stupid to realize it.
> 
> If the authority or credentials of scientists mattered to you at all, you would have long ago accepted evolutionary theory. So, in short, you paused from calling all the scientists liars and incompetent to argue to the authority of a small handful of scientists.
> 
> You, of course, are far too stupid and shallow to understand that you are embarrassing yourself by doing this.
Click to expand...



I'll bet you don't know what Darwin's theory is.

Let's see you state the 3 or 4 principles that define it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Quasar44 said:


> You’re a science illiterate and a religious nut job





Soooo.....your analysis is that these folks are  science illiterates and a religious nut jobs.



Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)

75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull

20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660


This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
Click to expand...


1. It's really funny that you cut and paste lists from charlatans at the Disco'tute.

2. You wouldn't understand it, of course, but you really identify how intellectually bankrupt the industry of hyper-religious loons really us.

3. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography | National Center for Science Education

As Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University reported at the March 11 panel discussion in Columbus, there is no published work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting intelligent design.[3] For a scientific publication to be peer-reviewed is for it to be assessed for its scientific merit by experts having knowledge of the research area equal to that of the author. Peer review is essentially a form of quality control in the modern scientific world. The fact that there is no published work supporting intelligent design in the peer-reviewed scientific literature strongly suggests that the Discovery Institute's claim that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory is false.


But what of the "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Education" provided by Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute to the Ohio Board of Education?[4] The 44 publications listed in the Bibliography are indeed legitimate and valuable contributions to the scientific literature. But what is the point of the Bibliography itself?

As it was originally furnished to the Board, the Bibliography was prefaced with the following explanation:



> The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.


Because the representatives of the Discovery Institute who appeared at the March 11 meeting — Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyer — were widely touted as promoters of "intelligent design," it would have been reasonable for the Board to assume that among the "dissenting viewpoints" included in the Bibliography was "intelligent design." But it isn't.

NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for "intelligent design."[5] None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion. For example, Douglas H. Erwin (author of [8]), answered, "Of course not — [intelligent design] is a non sequitur, nothing but a fundamentally flawed attempt to promote creationism under a different guise. Nothing in this paper or any of my other work provides the slightest scintilla of support for 'intelligent design'. To argue that it does requires a deliberate and pernicious misreading of the papers."[6]Several respondents even went so far as to say that their work constituted scientific evidence against "intelligent design."

Similarly, on the basis of the explanation prefaced to the Bibliography, it would have been reasonable for the Board to assume that the publications included in the Bibliography challenged evolution. But they don't. None of the respondents to NCSE's questionnaire considered their work to provide scientific evidence against evolution. David M. Williams (coauthor of [18]), for example, simply remarked, "No, certainly not. How could it possibly?" Almost all of the respondents emphasized that their work provided scientific evidence for evolution. Kenneth Weiss (author of [21]), for example, remarked, "I state clearly that evolution is beyond dispute based on all the evidence I am aware of."


This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
> Would you continue to believe it?
> It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...
> 
> “Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is *the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations,* both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:
> 
> The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> and
> 
> The Biology Term For History
> 
> Both scrupulously documented and supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because *Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics*, *is based on lies.*
> In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.
> 
> 
> And, *why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie* to make the point?
> But there is *an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it*….I’ll get to it…
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is 100 percent fact ; I am sorry you’re just a HS drop out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about these 'HS drop outs'....
> 
> 
> . Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)
> 
> 75. No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism - etmcmull
> 
> 20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660
> 
> 
> This is where you say "...duhhhhhhh..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are making yourself look even more stupid and dishonest by posting this. But you are too stupid to realize it.
> 
> If the authority or credentials of scientists mattered to you at all, you would have long ago accepted evolutionary theory. So, in short, you paused from calling all the scientists liars and incompetent to argue to the authority of a small handful of scientists.
> 
> You, of course, are far too stupid and shallow to understand that you are embarrassing yourself by doing this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you don't know what Darwin's theory is.
> 
> Let's see you state the 3 or 4 principles that define it.
Click to expand...



On the other hand, post the "*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*"

Hyper-religious loons seem unable to offer anything to support religionism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's see you state the 3 or 4 principles that define it.


Actually, it's 5. And I was kind enough to spoonfeed them to you in another thread already. What a waste of time that obviously was.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see you state the 3 or 4 principles that define it.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's 5. And I was kind enough to spoonfeed them to you in another thread already. What a waste of time that obviously was.
Click to expand...



Gee.....I don't see any of 'em.


So we’ve established that you don’t have a clue as to what Darwin’s theory is, but when your masters tell you to, you’re ready to support it anyway. Kinda works when you have an IQ below 80, huh?

Exactly what I've learned to expect of you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> Gee.....I don't see any of 'em.


So what? You cant even summarize your own plagiarized nonsense. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class. I am supposed to waste my time teaching these 5 fundamental points to you?


Hahaha...no, idiot. 

Even better...YOU summarize ONE of them. Just one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiarize????
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, absolutely. If there is one thing you have shown, it's that you couldn't argue any of these points in your own words if your life depended on it. You are clearly a moron who doesn't even understand what he is copy/pasting.
Click to expand...




So you admit it was your attempt at a smear you can't document.

Gee.....that means you're a liar, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....I don't see any of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? You cant even summarize your own plagiarized nonsense. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class. I am supposed to waste my time teaching these 5 fundamental points to you?
> 
> 
> Hahaha...no, idiot.
> 
> Even better...YOU summarize ONE of them. Just one.
Click to expand...



Plagiarize????

Any example?

No???

None????


Not a single one??????


Gee....you must be a lying low-life.


----------



## Grumblenuts

_The Queen of Smear_ shall never be outdone!
_The Queen of Smear_ lives to smear and evidently little else!
Never smear _The Queen of Smear_!
You will be smeared in return!
And pathetically so!
All hail _The Queen of Smear!_


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....I don't see any of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? You cant even summarize your own plagiarized nonsense. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class. I am supposed to waste my time teaching these 5 fundamental points to you?
> 
> 
> Hahaha...no, idiot.
> 
> Even better...YOU summarize ONE of them. Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiarize????
> 
> Any example?
> 
> No???
> 
> None????
> 
> 
> Not a single one??????
> 
> 
> Gee....you must be a lying low-life.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. Pitiful. You can't complete a coherent sentence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> So you admit it was your attempt at a smear you can't document.


The documentation is every one of your copypasta posts, coupled with your complete inability to summarize a single argument in your own words. I would have failed you out of my class immediately and would have sent you to the academic board with a recommendation for expulsion. Of course, i doubt you would have gotten into my university in the first place.


----------

