The Most Famous Fakes In Science

[PoliticalChic]

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

My statements are supported by every science research facility in the world that knows the work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.

What statements????


You ran from your own claims.

My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,

What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution

The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.

www.britannica.com

"Correct: How natural selection works within species
Anagenesis is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."



That's false.

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


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski


The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve demonstrated, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the cover of natural selection to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science actually says but doesn’t want us to notice that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all



About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

It's called a theory for a reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It's the most plausible theory."


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

You're simply too easily led.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists dismiss Darwin.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're the one changing the subject.

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

I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.

So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?

I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.

Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.

So is there anything other than Darwinism?

"So is there anything other than Darwinism?"


Lots.

“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in The New York Times. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.



That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning.



Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”





“Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid



“The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.



“Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)



The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.

As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells

problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.

 

[Hollie]

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

My statements are supported by every science research facility in the world that knows the work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.

What statements????


You ran from your own claims.

My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,

What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution

The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.

www.britannica.com

"Correct: How natural selection works within species
Anagenesis is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."



That's false.

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


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski


The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve demonstrated, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the cover of natural selection to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science actually says but doesn’t want us to notice that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all



About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?

It's funny to see your entire knowledge if science is contained within about a half-dozen phony ''quotes'' you litter threads with.

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

It's called a theory for a reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It's the most plausible theory."


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

You're simply too easily led.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists dismiss Darwin.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're the one changing the subject.

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

I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.

So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?

I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.

Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.

So is there anything other than Darwinism?

"So is there anything other than Darwinism?"


Lots.

“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in The New York Times. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.



That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning.



Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”





“Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid



“The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.



“Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)



The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.

As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells

problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.

Your knowledge of science revolves around Irving Kristol, a ''prominent social theorist''?

Is your primary care doctor the same person who does your nails?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never mind being 'in a minority.'

I'm not a weak sissy like you.

If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist. Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.

Here's another majority you might be interested in joining...

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

[November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]


Some of us think for ourselves.....then there's folks like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never mind being 'in a minority.'

I'm not a weak sissy like you.

If the minority is small enough, say 5% of the population, I'd say that makes you a radical, maybe even an extremist. Those of us in the mainstream, pity you.

 

[Dagosa]

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

My statements are supported by every science research facility in the world that knows the work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.

What statements????


You ran from your own claims.

My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,

What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution

The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.

www.britannica.com

"Correct: How natural selection works within species
Anagenesis is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."



That's false.

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


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski


The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve demonstrated, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the cover of natural selection to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science actually says but doesn’t want us to notice that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all



About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?

Why ? Because you are the copy paste queen who thinks they know more then a publication from Purdue U.
You’ve done nothing but show your ignorance. You’re a waste of time. Moving on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

My statements are supported by every science research facility in the world that knows the work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.

What statements????


You ran from your own claims.

My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,

What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution

The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.

www.britannica.com

"Correct: How natural selection works within species
Anagenesis is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."



That's false.

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


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski


The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve demonstrated, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the cover of natural selection to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science actually says but doesn’t want us to notice that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all



About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?

Why ? Because you are the copy paste queen who thinks they know more then a publication from Purdue U.
You’ve done nothing but show your ignorance. You’re a waste if time. Moving on.

Obviously I do know more.

I know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

And I just provided reading sources for you.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

It's called a theory for a reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It's the most plausible theory."


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

You're simply too easily led.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists dismiss Darwin.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're the one changing the subject.

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

I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.

So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?

I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.

Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.

So is there anything other than Darwinism?

"So is there anything other than Darwinism?"


Lots.

“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in The New York Times. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.



That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning.



Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”





“Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid



“The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.



“Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)



The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.

As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells

problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.

Did you realize that you provided a dead link from 2006 in the above?

Did you even bother to fact check what you cut and pasted?

See below for the current link, you parody of a mindless drone.

https://faseb.org/portals/2/PDFs/opa/Why%20is%20it%20important%20to%20teach%20evolution.pdf

Why is it important to teach evolution? Understanding evolution is critical for understanding biology. As the preeminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It explains the striking similarities among vastly different forms of life, the changes that occur within populations, and the development of new life forms. Excluding evolution from the science curricula or compromising its treatment deprives students of this fundamental and unifying scientific concept to explain the natural world. Teaching and learning about evolution have immense practical value that extends beyond understanding our world. The principles of evolution underlie improvements in crops, livestock, and farming methods. Natural selection accounts for the rise in pesticide resistance among agricultural pests and informs the design of new technologies to protect crops from insects and disease. Scientists are applying lessons from evolutionary biology to environmental conservation: plants and bacteria adapted to polluted environments are being used to replenish lost vegetation and to clean up toxic environments. Species from microbes to mammals adapt to climate change; studying the mechanism and rate of these changes can help conservation experts formulate appropriate measures to protect species facing extinction. Understanding evolution is also central to the advancement of medicine. Indeed, the entire field of “evolutionary medicine” is devoted to using the principles of evolution to study and treat human illness and disease. Concepts such as adaptation and mutation inform therapies and strategies to combat pathogens, including influenza. Models developed by evolutionary biologists have shed light on genetic variation that may account for an increased risk of Alzheimer’s and coronary heart disease. Knowing the evolutionary relationships among species allows scientists to choose appropriate organisms for the study of diseases, such as HIV. Scientists are even using the principles of natural selection to identify new drugs for detecting and treating diseases such as cancer. Studying evolution is an excellent way for students to learn about the process of scientific inquiry. Evolution offers countless and diverse examples of the ways scientists gather and analyze information, test competing hypotheses, and ultimately come to a consensus about explanations for natural phenomena. Understanding science is essential for making informed decisions and has become increasingly important for innovation and competitiveness in the 21st century workplace. It is critical, therefore, that students receive a sound science education including evolution. Removing evolution from the science classroom or allowing it to be compromised not only deprives students of a fundamental tenet of biology and medicine,

 

[Hollie]

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

What 'science' are you referring to?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

You didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

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

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

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

Such as?


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

Pretty weak of you.

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

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

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

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


Do a little research before your next error.

My statements are supported by every science research facility in the world that knows the work of Darwin. Why should I just repeat it. I went out of my way explaining how science works. It seems to have bounced off your head. You’re not bright enough in science to even ask questions about Darwin.

What statements????


You ran from your own claims.

My claims have not changed; he got things right and he got somethings wrong, mostly having to do with the limited technology he had to study species and the mechanism of change. Read, then you can sound a little smarter,

What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution

The publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is widely celebrated as a watershed moment in the history of science. Find out from this Encyclopedia Britannica Science list which parts of his initial theory were right and which didn’t quite hit the mark.

www.britannica.com

"Correct: How natural selection works within species
Anagenesis is the technical term for an evolutionary change in a group in which one species replaces another but branching into separate species does not take place. It can be argued that as a species travels through time, it continually adapts to its environment. The traits of individuals that do not survive long enough to reproduce fade from the species. Over time, observable changes (in size, coloration, or other traits) might appear as natural selection operates within the species. Hundreds of generations later, the species will be different from what it once was, but no new branches of the species’ evolutionary path will have been created."



That's false.

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


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski


The Darwinian evolution of new species out of existing species is still dependent on the purely random appearance of the genetic mutations that gradually accumulate via natural selection into new organs and species, a process which, as I’ve demonstrated, is inherently impossible. What the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life shows us is that, when it comes to the origin of life, materialist science lacks even the cover of natural selection to distract our gaze from the pure randomness upon which—as materialist science actually says but doesn’t want us to notice that it’s saying—the existence of all life is based. The "tornado in a junk yard" analogy is correct after all



About now, I bet you were wishing you had an actual education, huh?

Why ? Because you are the copy paste queen who thinks they know more then a publication from Purdue U.
You’ve done nothing but show your ignorance. You’re a waste if time. Moving on.

Obviously I do know more.

I know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

And I just provided reading sources for you.

Actually, you're wrong, as usual.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

www.talkorigins.org

I just provided reading sources for you.

 

[Dagosa]

know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

“know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “

In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts. Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
Look up the definition of natural selection ....

You are a pounded thumb.

 

[NoNukes]

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?

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


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

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


A pity you've never gotten to that realization.

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

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

She does not know the difference between fact and opinion, and proves it constantly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

“know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “

In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts. Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
Look up the definition of natural selection ....

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?


How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?


Ever?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

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?

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


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

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


A pity you've never gotten to that realization.

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

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

She does not know the difference between fact and opinion, and proves it constantly.

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as though it has been proven factual?

 

[Dagosa]

know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

“know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “

In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts. Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
Look up the definition of natural selection ....

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?


How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?


Ever?

“Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.

Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.

 

[Dagosa]

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?

It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.

 

[PoliticalChic]

know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

“know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “

In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts. Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
Look up the definition of natural selection ....

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?


How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?


Ever?

“Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.

Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.

Of course it is.

You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.


“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science




Write soon.....I like slapping you around.

 

[aaronleland]

He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished

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

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

View attachment 354805

You loving your puppy makes you exactly like Hitler.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?

It isn’t anywhere in the real world.....no where, nada nix.

See what I mean.

The best you can do is lie.

 

[Hollie]

know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact in producing a new species.

“know that natural selection has never....NEVER....been shown to be a fact “

In one sentence you keep displaying your stupidity. Do you know why Darwinism is call a theory ?
Seriously. You have never grasp on to the idea of theoretical science . I’ll say this slowly. Natural selection is a postulate of Darwinism. Postulates and theories are not facts. Newtonian physics is theoretical and not factual. Science doesn’t prove ANY statements are facts. Where did you ever get this stupid idea.
Look up the definition of natural selection ....

Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?


How many times must I pulverize your stupidity before you learn?


Ever?

“Why is it imposed on the uninitiated as a proven fact?“
It isn’t. If stupid people can’t read, that’s there problem.

Why don’t you get off your ass and read a science book. You keep repeating lies you read in Faux and Heritage .
I read your little BS before and no where in the teaching of Darwinism is it portrayed as a FACT. They are theories. Your little mind can’t seem to grasp it can you ? You did your little two step to give your version of what a fact was, but nowhere did the ACLU ever portray Darwinism as anything more them a theory in science. You’re imbecilic in your constant stone head beliefs from conservatives.

Of course it is.

You can play with words, but here are your pals in this very thread, admitting it.


“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science




Write soon.....I like slapping you around.

You Harun Yahya groupies are provided an allowance because you lack a science vocabulary. The following may help you understand terms and definitions.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.. how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a factthat all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain howlife evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972