The Biology Term For History

[Indeependent]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

All PC said was that there is zero proof for evolution.

A body of evidence demonstrates she is wrong.

She can't argue against it which is why she cuts and pastes phony, edited and altered ''quotes'' she steals from fundie websites.

Do you know what "proof" means.
And no, there is no body of evidence.
Look, there's nothing wrong with a theory as long as people don't try to explain away why it's OK to torture and/or murder living creatures.

Ok. I suppose the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, ect., have all conspired to support the fact of biological evolution.

Why do you believe it's OK to torturing and murder living creatures?

Not at all...Darwin inspired a whole new realm of scientific study. Nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is saying there is proof.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

Are you saying that millions of varieties of mushrooms prove evolution?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

Are you saying that millions of varieties of mushrooms prove evolution?

No, but the fact that this coral did exist at one time and yet it's close relatives still exist today is certainly proof of evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Ah, so you're a Christian.

All you saw was the quote from Matthew?

I got a kick out that dolt's post, too.

Imagine when I quote Lenin.

Ah, so you're NOT a Christian.

I bet you wish you could say you're NOT a moron.

 

[Hollie]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

People who want no responsibility to an absolute moral standard want to believe we are animals.
That's why abortion and euthanasia are so acceptable to them.
Then we wind up with dictators who have respect for animals and no respect for humans.

You just summarized about a hundred of my threads.

I may have to find a new hobby.

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Rather than call it a pretense, simply stick to the fact that there are theories that have not been proven.

My target is the one, most propagandized by the Left, especially in government school: Darwin's theory.

The followers come out believing it is a proven fact.

I prove it is neither.



In your post appears to be the suggestion that there is no proven theory of speciation, the production of new species.

In that case you would be correct.

You don't make a valid case for targeting supported scientific principles. You just litter threads with phony ''quotes'' from fundie websites.

All PC said was that there is zero proof for evolution.

A body of evidence demonstrates she is wrong.

She can't argue against it which is why she cuts and pastes phony, edited and altered ''quotes'' she steals from fundie websites.

Do you know what "proof" means.
And no, there is no body of evidence.
Look, there's nothing wrong with a theory as long as people don't try to explain away why it's OK to torture and/or murder living creatures.

Ok. I suppose the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, ect., have all conspired to support the fact of biological evolution.

Why do you believe it's OK to torturing and murder living creatures?

Not at all...Darwin inspired a whole new realm of scientific study. Nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is saying there is proof.

Do you think biological evolution is one, vast conspiracy theory?

 

[Mac1958]

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Ah, so you're a Christian.

All you saw was the quote from Matthew?

I got a kick out that dolt's post, too.

Imagine when I quote Lenin.

Ah, so you're NOT a Christian.

I bet you wish you could say you're NOT a moron.

Ah, so it's a SECRET.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

No vulgarity.....it proves you a low-life.

 

[Hollie]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Actually, "Darwinism", (and what you really mean is Darwin's Theory of Evolution), has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, biological evolution is not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put your work before peer review and let's see how you do.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

Are you saying that millions of varieties of mushrooms prove evolution?

No, but the fact that this coral did exist at one time and yet it's close relatives still exist today is certainly proof of evolution.

No.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Compare Darwin’s actual writings with current knowledge.



8. Those with a working knowledge of biology will recognize the classifications, kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus and species. Kingdom is the largest grouping, having an array of organisms. For example, the animal kingdom. At the end of the list, with fewer and fewer organism, and fewer and fewer differences between them, one specific species, as, a human being, Homo sapiens.

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram


A very simple test of logic: if Darwin was correct, wouldn’t we find the simplest, least advanced organism at the bottom of any fossil site? The furthest from the top of the deposit????


Any question??? Any dispute of that statement?

Be careful here, Darwinists......you are about to meet your doom.



This is where you Darwinist’s are hoist by your own petards.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ooooooo......the silence is deafening!!!

Suddenly all the government school Darwinists need to be somewhere else immediately.

They recognize the trap I've set for 'em.


The trap is called 'knowledge.'

 

[Hollie]

Compare Darwin’s actual writings with current knowledge.



8. Those with a working knowledge of biology will recognize the classifications, kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus and species. Kingdom is the largest grouping, having an array of organisms. For example, the animal kingdom. At the end of the list, with fewer and fewer organism, and fewer and fewer differences between them, one specific species, as, a human being, Homo sapiens.

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram


A very simple test of logic: if Darwin was correct, wouldn’t we find the simplest, least advanced organism at the bottom of any fossil site? The furthest from the top of the deposit????


Any question??? Any dispute of that statement?

Be careful here, Darwinists......you are about to meet your doom.



This is where you Darwinist’s are hoist by your own petards.

That’s all very melodramatic!!!

What do you need help understanding?

Be careful here, fundies. If, as you claim, the planet is only 6,000 years old, there shouldn’t be any fossil remains.

This is where fundies are wedged by their own undies.

 

[Hollie]

Ooooooo......the silence is deafening!!!

Suddenly all the government school Darwinists need to be somewhere else immediately.

They recognize the trap I've set for 'em.


The trap is called 'knowledge.'

Oooooooo. Silence from the cut and paste fraud. Suddenly, the madrassah attendee falls silent.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

No vulgarity.....it proves you a low-life.

"It proves you a low-life"

Ivy League education my ass!

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

No vulgarity.....it proves you a low-life.

"It proves you a low-life"

Ivy League education my ass!

And this is the level the once vaunted teaching profession has sunk to.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?

No vulgarity, dunce.


Everyone can see that I was correct in writing
I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.

You don't want vulgarity? Stop posting bullshit and I won't call it that. Take your sensitivity and shove up your ass!

Everything contained in your post is easily disproved. The fact you post volumes of lies does not warrant a point-by-point response.

I showed my grandson a fossil last night found by my great uncle on his farm that I have kept since I was his age. It is coral from the inland sea that the farm was once under. This species of coral no longer exists, but close relatives do. That's enough physical evidence to show your pathetic and trite arguments are invalid.

No vulgarity.....it proves you a low-life.

"It proves you a low-life"

Ivy League education my ass!

And this is the level the once vaunted teaching profession has sunk to.

More bullshit? Vaunted teaching profession?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Compare Darwin’s actual writings with current knowledge.



8. Those with a working knowledge of biology will recognize the classifications, kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus and species. Kingdom is the largest grouping, having an array of organisms. For example, the animal kingdom. At the end of the list, with fewer and fewer organism, and fewer and fewer differences between them, one specific species, as, a human being, Homo sapiens.

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram


A very simple test of logic: if Darwin was correct, wouldn’t we find the simplest, least advanced organism at the bottom of any fossil site? The furthest from the top of the deposit????


Any question??? Any dispute of that statement?

Be careful here, Darwinists......you are about to meet your doom.



This is where you Darwinist’s are hoist by your own petards.

That’s all very melodramatic!!!

What do you need help understanding?

Be careful here, fundies. If, as you claim, the planet is only 6,000 years old, there shouldn’t be any fossil remains.

This is where fundies are wedged by their own undies.

What are the odds against the first cell forming by chance?