There Is No Such Thing As "Science".....

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Left’s claim is that advances in science have proven religion nothing but superstition. Of course this is simply one more of the Left’s lies. The two, have actually converged, rather than diverged. And it is science that has moved closer to the other. (I believe Berlinski said that)

There's nothing in left wing politics that espouses the non existence of God, you are all over the place and beating a dead horse, I have no idea what exactly is bothering you.

Dennis Prager writes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

I disagree with Prager if he did say that. Science has never been in conflict with scripture. However some interpretations of scripture have conflicted with observations and some observations too have been misinterpreted by scientists.

Most of the people who drive the scientific revolution too, were theists, Christians mostly.

“Francis S. Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, discussed why he believes religion and science are compatible and why the current conflict over evolution vs. faith, particularly in the evangelical community, is unnecessary. Collins, an evangelical Christian, talked about his path from atheism to Christianity and his belief that science provides evidence of God. He cited the Big Bang theory and the fact that the universe had a beginning out of nothing. He added that the laws of physics have precisely the values needed for life to occur on earth and argued that would seem to point to a creator.” Religion and Science: Conflict or Harmony?



“Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries.”

The Universe Knew We Were Coming - Leadership Coaching Network​

Science is opening up the mystery of God as never before.

www.rich-hansen.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's nothing in left wing politics that espouses the non existence of God, you are all over the place and beating a dead horse, I have no idea what exactly is bothering you.

I disagree with Prager if he did say that. Science has never been in conflict with scripture. However some interpretations of scripture have conflicted with observations and some observations too have been misinterpreted by scientists.

Most of the people who drive the scientific revolution too, were theists, Christians mostly.

OMG!.....

You are astoundingly oblivious.

1. To begin with, according to molecular geneticist Dean Hamer, a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to his brain chemicals. Perhaps it will not be amiss to observe that Dr. Hamer has made the same claim about homosexuality, and if he has refrained from arguing that a person’s capacity to believe in molecular genetics is linked to a brain chemical, it is, no doubt, owing to a prudent sense that once that door is open, God knows how and when anyone will ever slam it shut again.
2. In the course of an essay denouncing not only theology but poetry and philosophy as well, Peter Atkins, a professor of physical chemistry at Oxford University, observes favorably of his ilk that scientists “are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality, and intellectually honest.” Given that science is, after all, “the apotheosis of the intellect and the consummation of the Renaissance, . . . there is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.”
3. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
4. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.
5. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . . . Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth century was not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind.
6. Psychologist Steven Pinker has claimed that “something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler. . . . On the scale of decades, comprehensive data . . . paint a shockingly happy picture.” To document this “shockingly happy picture,” Berlinski lists some 65 events from 1914 to the present along with the number of excess deaths incurred, and concludes: In considering Pinker’s assessment of the times in which we live, the only conclusion one can profitably draw is that such an excess of stupidity is not often to be found in nature.
7. One might think that the Holocaust would above all other events give the scientific-atheist pause. Hitler’s Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was “motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific.” The words are those of the historian Richard Weikart, who in his treatise From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany made clear what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. These observations find no echo at all in the literature of scientific atheism.
8. “The problem,” philosopher Simon Blackburn writes, “is one of . . . placing ethics within the disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part!” Blackburn, of course, is convinced that his chief obligation in facing this question “is above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order.” For Berlinski, this is rather as if an accomplished horseman were to decide that his chief task were to learn to ride without a horse. If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad.
9. Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” An argument against religious belief follows at once on the assumptions that theology is not science and belief is not knowledge. If by means of this argument it also follows that neither mathematics, the law, nor the greater part of ordinary human discourse have a claim on our epistemological allegiance, they must be accepted as casualties of war. Declarations of this sort have been common in the history of philosophy since the eighteenth century. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume argued that “if we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion!”. . . What-ever the vigor with which Hume advanced his views, arguments such as his when self-applied self-destruct. Hume’s remarks, after all, contain neither “abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number” nor “experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence.”
10. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, [physicist Victor Stenger] introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe. Critics will argue that we have no way of observing such an earlier universe, and so this is not very scientific.” This is true. Critics will do just that. Before they do, they will certainly observe that Stenger has completely misunderstood the terms of the problem that he has set himself, and that far from showing how some-thing can arise from nothing, he has shown only that something might arise from some-thing else.
11. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle advanced after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?
12. physicist Leonard Susskind wrote “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent — maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation — I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent design] critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solu-tion will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”
13. The spontaneous emergence of life on earth, Fred Hoyle once observed, is about as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 out of the debris. Since Hoyle’s scenario expresses with rare economy the odds favoring the spontaneous appearance of life, it has been an irritation to Dawkins ever since it made its appearance. Eventually he came up with this: if a tornado cannot do the job of creating life, then God cannot do the job of creating the universe.
14. In contemporary culture the kinship between human beings and the apes — promoted as both a moral virtue and a zoological fact — functions as a hedge against religious belief, and so it is eagerly advanced.
15. To affirm, as Wallace did, that human beings are fundamentally unlike the apes is widely considered a politically incorrect prejudice. Darwin went farther than Wallace, who simply recognized a persistent obstacle to the reduction of human virtues to animal instincts, in that he effectively turned the tables on reductionism. Animal instincts are human virtues in the process of emergence. As Sri Aurobindo wrote, The significance of the lotus is not to be found by analysing the secrets of the mud from which it grows here; its secret is to be found in the heavenly archetype of the lotus that blooms for ever in the Light above.
16. In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”
17. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive. Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
18. In the summer of 2007, Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health, published a paper entitled “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution.” “Major transitions in biological evolution,” Koonin writes, “show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”. Major transitions in biological evolution? These are precisely the transitions that Dar-win’s theory was intended to explain. . . . “The relationships between major groups with-in an emergent new class of biological entities,” Koonin goes on to say, “are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” The facts that fall out-side the margins of Darwin’s theory include “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.” That is, pretty much everything. . . . “In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history,” he goes on to say, “the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

One moment, please...

19. If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life. Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics



19. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

ature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm



19. Emile Zuckerkandl Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."



20. "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton

http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html

Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002) etmcmull - No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism





20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery

 

[PoliticalChic]

FYI - Marx himself was a scientist a social scientist.

You are a moron,

 

[PoliticalChic]

He was a big big supporter and pusher of Co2 FRAUD.

He hates Trump because Trump, hopefully THIS TIME, will appoint a patriotic American AG and that will end up with QUEEN in a MALE PRISON....

We can only hope.

The Marxists are deeply entrenched.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

OMG!.....

You are astoundingly oblivious.

1. To begin with, according to molecular geneticist Dean Hamer, a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to his brain chemicals. Perhaps it will not be amiss to observe that Dr. Hamer has made the same claim about homosexuality, and if he has refrained from arguing that a person’s capacity to believe in molecular genetics is linked to a brain chemical, it is, no doubt, owing to a prudent sense that once that door is open, God knows how and when anyone will ever slam it shut again.
2. In the course of an essay denouncing not only theology but poetry and philosophy as well, Peter Atkins, a professor of physical chemistry at Oxford University, observes favorably of his ilk that scientists “are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality, and intellectually honest.” Given that science is, after all, “the apotheosis of the intellect and the consummation of the Renaissance, . . . there is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.”
3. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
4. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.
5. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . . . Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth century was not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind.
6. Psychologist Steven Pinker has claimed that “something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler. . . . On the scale of decades, comprehensive data . . . paint a shockingly happy picture.” To document this “shockingly happy picture,” Berlinski lists some 65 events from 1914 to the present along with the number of excess deaths incurred, and concludes: In considering Pinker’s assessment of the times in which we live, the only conclusion one can profitably draw is that such an excess of stupidity is not often to be found in nature.
7. One might think that the Holocaust would above all other events give the scientific-atheist pause. Hitler’s Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was “motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific.” The words are those of the historian Richard Weikart, who in his treatise From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany made clear what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. These observations find no echo at all in the literature of scientific atheism.
8. “The problem,” philosopher Simon Blackburn writes, “is one of . . . placing ethics within the disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part!” Blackburn, of course, is convinced that his chief obligation in facing this question “is above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order.” For Berlinski, this is rather as if an accomplished horseman were to decide that his chief task were to learn to ride without a horse. If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad.
9. Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” An argument against religious belief follows at once on the assumptions that theology is not science and belief is not knowledge. If by means of this argument it also follows that neither mathematics, the law, nor the greater part of ordinary human discourse have a claim on our epistemological allegiance, they must be accepted as casualties of war. Declarations of this sort have been common in the history of philosophy since the eighteenth century. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume argued that “if we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion!”. . . What-ever the vigor with which Hume advanced his views, arguments such as his when self-applied self-destruct. Hume’s remarks, after all, contain neither “abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number” nor “experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence.”
10. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, [physicist Victor Stenger] introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe. Critics will argue that we have no way of observing such an earlier universe, and so this is not very scientific.” This is true. Critics will do just that. Before they do, they will certainly observe that Stenger has completely misunderstood the terms of the problem that he has set himself, and that far from showing how some-thing can arise from nothing, he has shown only that something might arise from some-thing else.
11. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle advanced after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?
12. physicist Leonard Susskind wrote “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent — maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation — I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent design] critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solu-tion will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”
13. The spontaneous emergence of life on earth, Fred Hoyle once observed, is about as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 out of the debris. Since Hoyle’s scenario expresses with rare economy the odds favoring the spontaneous appearance of life, it has been an irritation to Dawkins ever since it made its appearance. Eventually he came up with this: if a tornado cannot do the job of creating life, then God cannot do the job of creating the universe.
14. In contemporary culture the kinship between human beings and the apes — promoted as both a moral virtue and a zoological fact — functions as a hedge against religious belief, and so it is eagerly advanced.
15. To affirm, as Wallace did, that human beings are fundamentally unlike the apes is widely considered a politically incorrect prejudice. Darwin went farther than Wallace, who simply recognized a persistent obstacle to the reduction of human virtues to animal instincts, in that he effectively turned the tables on reductionism. Animal instincts are human virtues in the process of emergence. As Sri Aurobindo wrote, The significance of the lotus is not to be found by analysing the secrets of the mud from which it grows here; its secret is to be found in the heavenly archetype of the lotus that blooms for ever in the Light above.
16. In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”
17. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive. Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
18. In the summer of 2007, Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health, published a paper entitled “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution.” “Major transitions in biological evolution,” Koonin writes, “show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”. Major transitions in biological evolution? These are precisely the transitions that Dar-win’s theory was intended to explain. . . . “The relationships between major groups with-in an emergent new class of biological entities,” Koonin goes on to say, “are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” The facts that fall out-side the margins of Darwin’s theory include “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.” That is, pretty much everything. . . . “In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history,” he goes on to say, “the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

One moment, please...

19. If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life. Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics



19. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

ature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm



19. Emile Zuckerkandl Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."



20. "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton

http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/ALinton.html

Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002) etmcmull - No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism





20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery

TLDR - Your reply is ridiculously long and I can't spend the time trawling it, it's a shame because you put some effort into it I can see. You'll no doubt interpret this as cowardice or some such on my part but so be it, be concise if you want people to meaningfully respond to you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are a moron,

Do you dispute that Karl Marx - a Jew incidentally - was a social scientist?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you dispute that Karl Marx - a Jew incidentally - was a social scientist?

And you are ignorant, too.

Marx was not a Jew.

Karl was six when his father converted the family, and never believed he was Jewish, nor did he ever study Judaism. He was, per his writings, anti-Semitic to the core.


Marx was an agent of and worshipper of, the Devil.

“In his poem entitled The Player, Marx penned these words:

“The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain, till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.

See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me.”

The poem, downplayed by his supporters, certainly speaks of a satanic connection to Karl Marx’s theory. But not only that, it ties into the violence and murder that defined much of the communist oppression. [And, have you seen Democrat Utopia, Portland?]



But it doesn’t stop there In another poem called Invocation of One in Despair, Marx writes:

So a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of destiny,
All his worlds are gone beyond recall, nothing but revenge is left in me.

I shall build my throne high overhead.
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be
For its bulwark — superstitious dread.
For its marshal — blackest agony.

When you combine the worlds “I shall build my throne high overhead” with words from a second poem where Marx declares himself equal with God:

Then I will be able to walk triumphantly
Like a god, through the rains of their kingdom
Every word of mine is fire and action.
My breast is equal to that of the Creator.

You begin to see an unmistakable parallel with words of the prophet Isaiah who described the fall of Satan:

“But you (Satan) said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north. (Isaiah 14:13-14 NASV)”
Was Karl Marx and the rise of communism influenced by Satan?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And you are ignorant, too.

Marx was not a Jew.

Karl was six when his father converted the family, and never believed he was Jewish, nor did he ever study Judaism. He was, per his writings, anti-Semitic to the core.


Marx was an agent of and worshipper of, the Devil.

“In his poem entitled The Player, Marx penned these words:

“The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain, till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.

See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me.”

The poem, downplayed by his supporters, certainly speaks of a satanic connection to Karl Marx’s theory. But not only that, it ties into the violence and murder that defined much of the communist oppression. [And, have you seen Democrat Utopia, Portland?]



But it doesn’t stop there In another poem called Invocation of One in Despair, Marx writes:

So a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of destiny,
All his worlds are gone beyond recall, nothing but revenge is left in me.

I shall build my throne high overhead.
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be
For its bulwark — superstitious dread.
For its marshal — blackest agony.

When you combine the worlds “I shall build my throne high overhead” with words from a second poem where Marx declares himself equal with God:

Then I will be able to walk triumphantly
Like a god, through the rains of their kingdom
Every word of mine is fire and action.
My breast is equal to that of the Creator.

You begin to see an unmistakable parallel with words of the prophet Isaiah who described the fall of Satan:

“But you (Satan) said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north. (Isaiah 14:13-14 NASV)”
Was Karl Marx and the rise of communism influenced by Satan?

First:

Second, do not lecture me on matters theological:

 

[PoliticalChic]

First:

View attachment 1048803

Second, do not lecture me on matters theological:

View attachment 1048804

Be sure to return when you learn to accept fact....

....and are prepared to apologize.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Be sure to return when you learn to accept fact....

....and are prepared to apologize.

You accused me of being ignorant and took it upon yourself to try to indoctrinate me with some theological beliefs of yours.
No serious scholar - honest one's anyway - argue that Karl Marx was not a Jew, yet you did and accuse me of ignorance? but will you apologize for that? No, of course you won't, you are a deceiver just as the Timothy passage warns us about:

 

[PoliticalChic]

You accused me of being ignorant and took it upon yourself to try to indoctrinate me with some theological beliefs of yours.
No serious scholar - honest one's anyway - argue that Karl Marx was not a Jew, yet you did and accuse me of ignorance? but will you apologize for that? No, of course you won't, you are a deceiver just as the Timothy passage warns us about:

View attachment 1048811

Be sure to return when you learn to accept fact....

....and are prepared to apologize.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Be sure to return when you learn to accept fact....

Please provide a credible source that demonstrates Karl Marx was not a Jew - can you do that?

....and are prepared to apologize.

I absolutely will apologize to you here in public if you demonstrate that Karl Marx was not a Jew as you insisted two days ago:

Bear in mind some awkward facts though, for example Karl Marx's paternal grandfather (Mordechai Levi) was a Rabbi, but don't let details like that get in the way.

Does anybody else here agree with PoliticalChic claiming Karl Marx was not a Jew? or is she being antisemitic in denying his Jewishness?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please provide a credible source that demonstrates Karl Marx was not a Jew - can you do that?

I absolutely will apologize to you here in public if you demonstrate that Karl Marx was not a Jew as you insisted two days ago:

View attachment 1049326

Bear in mind some awkward facts though, for example Karl Marx's paternal grandfather (Mordechai Levi) was a Rabbi, but don't let details like that get in the way.

Does anybody else here agree with PoliticalChic claiming Karl Marx was not a Jew? or is she being antisemitic in denying his Jewishness?

Be sure to return when you learn to accept fact....

....and are prepared to apologize.