The Most Famous Fakes In Science

[esalla]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

 

[Hollie]

Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We accept your lack of knowledge

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

 

[Hollie]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

 

[esalla]

Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We accept your lack of knowledge

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

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

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

 

[esalla]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

The truth does not change silly

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

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

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

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

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

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

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

 

[Hollie]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

The truth does not change silly

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

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

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

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

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

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

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it (Darwinism) taught as a fact?

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

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

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

Good to see you again.

 

[abu afak]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

Kweationists DEPEND on DISHONEST, UNCONTEXTED 'quote mining'.

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

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

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

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

www.sciencedaily.com

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

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

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

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

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

`

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So are public libraries.

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

I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand why you'd rather change the subject.

Must be painful for you,. huh?

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

This is science, not theology.

Actually, angry xtian cranks have little knowledge of science.

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

Other than the ones I supplied to you?

 

[alang1216]

I explained the truth in the very first post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Taz]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

So where do all the different animals come from?

 

[ChemEngineer]

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

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

ciao brutto

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

 

[abu afak]

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

ciao brutto

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

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

 

[Taz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So are public libraries.

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

I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[esalla]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

The truth does not change silly

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

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

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

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

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

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

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

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

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

Next

 

[Hollie]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

The truth does not change silly

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

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

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

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

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

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

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

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

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

Next

You made a good choice to run away.

 

[esalla]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So are public libraries.

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

I am not an Atheist, but Agnostic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[esalla]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

The truth does not change silly

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

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

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

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

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

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

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

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

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

Next

You made a good choice to run away.

I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning

You ate krap like usual

They teach you that at Harvard

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

 

[Hollie]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

The Queen of the Dummies is denying science again.

Me?

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

The propaganda called Darwin's theory????


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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

Did they teach Darwin's theory?

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it taught as a fact?

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

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

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

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

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

Same cut and paste fraud. Tiresome, really.

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

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

For a retard with obsessive compulsive disorder you are rather funny

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

There’s a good boy.

The truth does not change silly

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

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

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

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

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

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

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

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

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

Next

You made a good choice to run away.

I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning

You ate krap like usual

They teach you that at Harvard

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

Did you fall off your bike and bump your head?

 

[abu afak]

I rode 40 miles on my race bike this morning
You ate krap like usual
They teach you that at Harvard

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

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

`