The Most Famous Fakes In Science

[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?

Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.

So what's the alternative theory? Anything?

Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?

 

[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

Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that change, DNA, natural selection et al.

One is ALL THEORY.

I understand your retreat from Darwinism.

You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.

About time.

Your appeals to hyper-religious loons at the Disco'tute is not competition for supported science

 

[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?

Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.

So what's the alternative theory? Anything?

Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?

Evolution is fact. Why is it essential for hyper-religious loons to be ignorant?

 

[Taz]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof, "spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever. How do you rationalize that?
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

 

[Taz]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

It's a theory.

So what about the rest of my post?

 

[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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

It's a theory.

So what about the rest of my post?

Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

 

[Hollie]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

When your phony ''quotes'' are plagiarized from fundie websites, it's clear what agenda you're pressing.

Odd that you would plagiarize material from Harun Yahya. Adnan Oktar is in some competition with fundie xtians.

 

[Taz]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

It's a theory.

So what about the rest of my post?

Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

You post rests heavily on religious reasons being responsible for all the animals. And you have a paragraph on the Pope. 1+1=?

So basically, you're not going to address the rest of my post. And I know why, it's because I'm right with my assessments of your posts, and you're too much of an embarrassed weenie to stand up for what you believe and debate me on it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

It's a theory.

So what about the rest of my post?

Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

You post rests heavily on religious reasons being responsible for all the animals. And you have a paragraph on the Pope. 1+1=?

So basically, you're not going to address the rest of my post. And I know why, it's because I'm right with my assessments of your posts, and you're too much of an embarrassed weenie to stand up for what you believe and debate me on it.

Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

 

[Taz]

"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.

I agree that it's a theory, a very plausible one. And there really is no other explanation.
The Pope talks about theories, plural, and says " in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved... as well as spiritualist theories." That's based on nothing but wishful thinking and magical fairy tales. Where's the science? You discount Darwin for lack of proof,"spiritual theories" have no proof whatsoever.
"He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. " Got any links? I'd be interested to check out these rival scientific opinions on the origins of life and how all the animals came about.

So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. So here's some advice, don't make fun of people who think that Darwin has the most plausible theory, because believing that your invisible buddy plopped all the animals down throughout earth's history is the most unproven theory out there. And somewhat laughable as well.

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

It's a theory.

So what about the rest of my post?

Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

You post rests heavily on religious reasons being responsible for all the animals. And you have a paragraph on the Pope. 1+1=?

So basically, you're not going to address the rest of my post. And I know why, it's because I'm right with my assessments of your posts, and you're too much of an embarrassed weenie to stand up for what you believe and debate me on it.

Are you admitting that this is a lie?

"So basically, your views on how all the different animals came to be rests on religion, The Catholic religion. "

Can you find a quot of mine where I claimed so?

No?

So, you're lying out of embarrassment?

So I put you on TILT!

 

[Dagosa]

"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?

Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.

So what's the alternative theory? Anything?

Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?

Evolution is fact. Why is it essential for hyper-religious loons to be ignorant?

To be clear, evolution in the general sense maybe factual simply because change is inevitable but the mechanism involved is all theory.

 

[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.

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

Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that change, DNA, natural selection et al.

One is ALL THEORY.

I understand your retreat from Darwinism.

You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.

About time.

Ha ha
It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.

 

[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?

Not for individuals like you, who suffer from indelible indoctrination.

So what's the alternative theory? Anything?

Why is it essential to certain powers that Darwinism be accepted as fact, as proven?

Evolution is fact. Why is it essential for hyper-religious loons to be ignorant?

To be clear, evolution in the general sense maybe factual simply because change is inevitable but the mechanism involved is all theory.

We're not discussing 'evolution in the general sense,' we're forcing you to admit that Darwin, the specific, has tricked you all your life.

It was not until you saw my thread that you ever had to question the belief.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that change, DNA, natural selection et al.

One is ALL THEORY.

I understand your retreat from Darwinism.

You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.

About time.

Ha ha
It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.

And you have to admit it.

It must really hurt, being proven to be a life-long dunce.

 

[Taz]

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

Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that change, DNA, natural selection et al.

One is ALL THEORY.

I understand your retreat from Darwinism.

You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.

About time.

Ha ha
It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.

And you have to admit it.

It must really hurt, being proven to be a life-long dunce.

TILT!Chic, you believe in an invisible friend who poofed everything into being. I guess you know about being a dunce... on TILT!

 

[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

Why get so wordy. “evolution “ small e is just a statement of change. The theory of Evolution Is a discussion of the mechanism of the that change, DNA, natural selection et al.

One is ALL THEORY.

I understand your retreat from Darwinism.

You're finally realizing you've been fooled your whole live.

About time.

Ha ha
It’s you who keep talking about Darwinism being wrong.

And you have to admit it.

It must really hurt, being proven to be a life-long dunce.

Might I suggest you limit your participation to cutting and pasting your usual, phony “quotes”?

When you’re left to attempting the assembly of words into meaningful sentences, you’re rather lacking.

 

[dblack]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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




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

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



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



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

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

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

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


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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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…

This is your support of Darwin's theory?


Pretty much on the same level as all of your other posts.

 

[dblack]

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…

This is your support of Darwin's theory?

Nope. Miracles.