Darwin: Far From Science

[alang1216]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

 

[alang1216]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the case.

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

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

Nothing in either assemblage contradicts Darwin.

 

[alang1216]

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

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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


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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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



This is what I've posted....


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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


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



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

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


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



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

Speak up, moron!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

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

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

This is what I've posted....


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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


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



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

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


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



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

Speak up, moron!!!

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Yet you couldn't name any.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[jillian]

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


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

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

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




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


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

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

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



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

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

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

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


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


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


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


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

nice cut and paste.

all stupid... but well done!

 

[jillian]

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

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

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


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

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

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

she has too much time on her hands.

 

[alang1216]

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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


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

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

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


Glad we agree that the other 10 items are indisputable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

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


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

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

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


Glad we agree that the other 10 items are indisputable.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


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

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

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




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


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

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

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



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

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

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

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


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


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


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


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

nice cut and paste.

all stupid... but well done!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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


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



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

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


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



Warning!!!

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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


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



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

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


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

Speak up, moron!!!

 

[alang1216]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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


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



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

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


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

Speak up, moron!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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