Scientific dictatorship

[A little knowledge]

Scientific Dictatorship

The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "


Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.


--
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing


"The U.S. government does not study anything holistically. Everything
is studied in isolation from all else."
-- The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and
Trust (Manifesto Series) by Robert David Steele
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/05/robert-steele-at-libtechnyc-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/07/the-origin-of-education-and-mandatory-schooling/
"From an early age, we are forced into a mandatory school system that
requires and encourages youth to attend for a large portion of their
human life, for six hours a day. Each child is required to learn the
accepted version of reality in order to fit into the specific mold
desired by the elite. Just like television, a large part of school is
simply programming. It’s ironic how the same families behind the
funding are responsible for many inhumane atrocities that took place
throughout history. They are also behind big oil, big pharma, food and
other industries that are becoming more transparent as of late. Kids
who do not fit into the system and do not resonate with it are usually
labelled and medicated. Essentially, the whole point of school is to
shape the reality of the student."


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
" ...if we were really taught to critically think do you think we
would have the systems we have in place now? Our financial system? Our
health system and its corruption? Events like 9/11? Religions? Even
our education system for that matter. If we were actually taught to
critically think, education as we know it would collapse on itself and
a new system would be built. If we were actually taught to critically
think, the powers at be would not have the control they do now, this
is why we are sent to school from such a young age, and why fear is
used to get us to continue in our later years."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
"It is important we learn to understand the information we take in and
not simply memorize it, this will allow us to break each piece of
information down to its roots and find the truth or fallacy. It is
evident we rarely do this now by simply looking at the world we live
in. This does not mean we need to be skeptics or pessimists, or try
and logically think everything out, it simply means we should look to
understand our information and FEEL whether is bares truth. We need
not memorize information we receive from authority figures, it is a
choice, one we can all make from here on out."


Circular reasoning, also known as 'Begging the question'
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
eg of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God [and god never lies]"


Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/07/29/is-big-pharma-addicted-to-fraud/


Patents Over Patients
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opinion/01moss.html
"We could make faster progress against cancer by changing the way
drugs are developed. In the current system, if a promising compound
can’t be patented, it is highly unlikely ever to make it to market"

[Government Shill #2]

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>

By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.

The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html

So:
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.

Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.

Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences

Shill #2
--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov

[A little knowledge]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.

True?

This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.

DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."


What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.


--
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing


"The U.S. government does not study anything holistically. Everything
is studied in isolation from all else."
-- The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and
Trust (Manifesto Series) by Robert David Steele
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/05/robert-steele-at-libtechnyc-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/07/the-origin-of-education-and-mandatory-schooling/
"From an early age, we are forced into a mandatory school system that
requires and encourages youth to attend for a large portion of their
human life, for six hours a day. Each child is required to learn the
accepted version of reality in order to fit into the specific mold
desired by the elite. Just like television, a large part of school is
simply programming. It’s ironic how the same families behind the
funding are responsible for many inhumane atrocities that took place
throughout history. They are also behind big oil, big pharma, food and
other industries that are becoming more transparent as of late. Kids
who do not fit into the system and do not resonate with it are usually
labelled and medicated. Essentially, the whole point of school is to
shape the reality of the student."


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
" ...if we were really taught to critically think do you think we
would have the systems we have in place now? Our financial system? Our
health system and its corruption? Events like 9/11? Religions? Even
our education system for that matter. If we were actually taught to
critically think, education as we know it would collapse on itself and
a new system would be built. If we were actually taught to critically
think, the powers at be would not have the control they do now, this
is why we are sent to school from such a young age, and why fear is
used to get us to continue in our later years."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
"It is important we learn to understand the information we take in and
not simply memorize it, this will allow us to break each piece of
information down to its roots and find the truth or fallacy. It is
evident we rarely do this now by simply looking at the world we live
in. This does not mean we need to be skeptics or pessimists, or try
and logically think everything out, it simply means we should look to
understand our information and FEEL whether is bares truth. We need
not memorize information we receive from authority figures, it is a
choice, one we can all make from here on out."


Circular reasoning, also known as 'Begging the question'
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
eg of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God [and god never lies]"


Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/07/29/is-big-pharma-addicted-to-fraud/


Patents Over Patients
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opinion/01moss.html
"We could make faster progress against cancer by changing the way
drugs are developed. In the current system, if a promising compound
can’t be patented, it is highly unlikely ever to make it to market"

[Government Shill #2]

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?

I'll type it slowly this time:

"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.

Read it and see for yourself:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
evolution. They, and you, might like to have a look at this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.

Shill #2
--
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice
whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own
homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.
Arthur C. Clark

[Bob Officer]

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

I laughed at the oxymoronic web site vedicscience, nothing scientific about
anything Vedic.

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I know, Carole is very silly.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

Points to a recent find of an dinosaur's tail feathers preserved in amber.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

You can lead to horse to water and it will drink. Lead a jackass to water
and it will refuse just to spite you.

[Stick]

Post by Bob Officer
You can lead to horse to water and it will drink. Lead a jackass to water
and it will refuse just to spite you.

Carole is a jackass.

[A little knowledge]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

Post by Bob Officer

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ?scientific
dictatorship.? Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ?epistemological weapon? against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
?scientific dictatorship? is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - ?The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.? National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

I laughed at the oxymoronic web site vedicscience, nothing scientific about
anything Vedic.

Hey bob, you been listening to establishment-logic too long.
They say russia interfered in US election but can't provide the reason
or any evidence of how it happened. Just take their word for it.

Post by Bob Officer

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I know, Carole is very silly.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

Points to a recent find of an dinosaur's tail feathers preserved in amber.

What points to a dinosaur's tail feather?

Post by Bob Officer

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

You can lead to horse to water and it will drink. Lead a jackass to water
and it will refuse just to spite you.

Or you can lead a dumbarse to some logic but since logic isn't a word
in their vocabulary it fails to connect. No cause and effect in the
dumbarse's mind ... just spin and hype from "experts and reliable
sources".


--
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing


"The U.S. government does not study anything holistically. Everything
is studied in isolation from all else."
-- The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and
Trust (Manifesto Series) by Robert David Steele
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/05/robert-steele-at-libtechnyc-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/07/the-origin-of-education-and-mandatory-schooling/
"From an early age, we are forced into a mandatory school system that
requires and encourages youth to attend for a large portion of their
human life, for six hours a day. Each child is required to learn the
accepted version of reality in order to fit into the specific mold
desired by the elite. Just like television, a large part of school is
simply programming. It’s ironic how the same families behind the
funding are responsible for many inhumane atrocities that took place
throughout history. They are also behind big oil, big pharma, food and
other industries that are becoming more transparent as of late. Kids
who do not fit into the system and do not resonate with it are usually
labelled and medicated. Essentially, the whole point of school is to
shape the reality of the student."


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
" ...if we were really taught to critically think do you think we
would have the systems we have in place now? Our financial system? Our
health system and its corruption? Events like 9/11? Religions? Even
our education system for that matter. If we were actually taught to
critically think, education as we know it would collapse on itself and
a new system would be built. If we were actually taught to critically
think, the powers at be would not have the control they do now, this
is why we are sent to school from such a young age, and why fear is
used to get us to continue in our later years."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
"It is important we learn to understand the information we take in and
not simply memorize it, this will allow us to break each piece of
information down to its roots and find the truth or fallacy. It is
evident we rarely do this now by simply looking at the world we live
in. This does not mean we need to be skeptics or pessimists, or try
and logically think everything out, it simply means we should look to
understand our information and FEEL whether is bares truth. We need
not memorize information we receive from authority figures, it is a
choice, one we can all make from here on out."


Circular reasoning, also known as 'Begging the question'
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
eg of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God [and god never lies]"

[A little knowledge]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."

So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

---
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"

So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?

Apparently there are none.

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

Post by Government Shill #2
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,
or that man is older than science currently says?

There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.


--
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing


"The U.S. government does not study anything holistically. Everything
is studied in isolation from all else."
-- The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and
Trust (Manifesto Series) by Robert David Steele
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/05/robert-steele-at-libtechnyc-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/07/the-origin-of-education-and-mandatory-schooling/
"From an early age, we are forced into a mandatory school system that
requires and encourages youth to attend for a large portion of their
human life, for six hours a day. Each child is required to learn the
accepted version of reality in order to fit into the specific mold
desired by the elite. Just like television, a large part of school is
simply programming. It’s ironic how the same families behind the
funding are responsible for many inhumane atrocities that took place
throughout history. They are also behind big oil, big pharma, food and
other industries that are becoming more transparent as of late. Kids
who do not fit into the system and do not resonate with it are usually
labelled and medicated. Essentially, the whole point of school is to
shape the reality of the student."


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
" ...if we were really taught to critically think do you think we
would have the systems we have in place now? Our financial system? Our
health system and its corruption? Events like 9/11? Religions? Even
our education system for that matter. If we were actually taught to
critically think, education as we know it would collapse on itself and
a new system would be built. If we were actually taught to critically
think, the powers at be would not have the control they do now, this
is why we are sent to school from such a young age, and why fear is
used to get us to continue in our later years."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
"It is important we learn to understand the information we take in and
not simply memorize it, this will allow us to break each piece of
information down to its roots and find the truth or fallacy. It is
evident we rarely do this now by simply looking at the world we live
in. This does not mean we need to be skeptics or pessimists, or try
and logically think everything out, it simply means we should look to
understand our information and FEEL whether is bares truth. We need
not memorize information we receive from authority figures, it is a
choice, one we can all make from here on out."


Circular reasoning, also known as 'Begging the question'
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
eg of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God [and god never lies]"

[Government Shill #2]

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

No! As the copy and paste you provide below says:

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."

Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.

"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

What part of this do you need explained to you?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.

-

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.

The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount of
time.

I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/

A quote from there might help

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Try this, it's not 400 pages:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they obviously
have not the first idea about.

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.

For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.

At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

Post by A little knowledge
or that man is older than science currently says?

Man is not older than science curently says. Science currenty says man is about
200,000 years old as a species. Why would you expect to see official records
saying that the species is older than that?

Post by A little knowledge
There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.

Only if you've never read anything on the theory of evolution. It is uncovered
there for all to see.

Shill #2
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick

[Bob Officer]

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences

Carole still doesn't understand the process from observation, to hypothesis
to theory and all,the small set of steps between. Her concept of a science
is a person mixing stuff together in a stereotypical mad scientist sort of
way.

For example Carole has been treating her self diagnosed foot fungus for
nearly 30 years. It is comical to say the least. She has to constant change
the ratio of sodium bicarbonate and cream of tartar mixes. Even when it is
explained to her that combination is a powerful laxative and by now she
laxative addicted. Additionally if she actually had a foot fungus all she
has done is reduced her perspiration level and stopped the fungus from
forming blisters as often. The fungus is still alive and growing.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.

That says a lot right there... common use and common knowledge two items
which real should be avoided.

Post by A little knowledge
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

All of it, I suspect. It has been pointed out to her time after time that
which she might read things she has trouble understanding exactly what it
means. She has posted article after article which actually refutes many of
her claims, because she doesn't understand many of the claims run counter
to each other.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Carole is too stupid to actually read the principle work she wants to
discuss, and is ready to criticize the works based on what someone else
says. She swallows other people's ad hoc fallacies even adds her own to
the mix. The item that takes the cake is she to called everyone else
"dumbed down" when in fact she is the dumbed down person.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

The concept of Evolution didn't start with Darwin. And if she read the book
she would even find her perilous flowers are bred using Darwin's theory of
selection. In Darwin's theory in 100% uncontrolled environments, the
survival of the fittest the the rule.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.

The

Post by A little knowledge
-

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

Like many things the public says in common terms is not accurate. The
inaccuracies in common speak has long been a problem. Carole has long term
problems when she doesn't understand a technical term. She has the
misguided belief that everything should be distilled down the terminolgy
with he simple minded can fully understand.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.

And the real,problem is the use of Vedic Science, which isn't really
science at all, but a set of dogmatic statements from the Hindu religion.
Carole is too stupid to understand the word science doesn't exist in Hindi,
but the word knowledge which doesn't involve any real,science but is simple
believed to be true.

Post by A little knowledge
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/

She can't be bothered with any reading outside he dogmatic be,i.e. father.

Post by A little knowledge
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

You lost her with the use of the word "ontogeny". Last week Carole was
critical when I used the simple word cohort.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they obviously
have not the first idea about.

Most of the people are ignorant of a subject matter, but are ready to spout
off nonsense based in ignorance.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Do a search on "dinosaur tail feather found in amber", a very amazing find.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are wrong.

Odds are the people criticizing Darwin's work never read it.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.

Actually science has shown protein creation from a chemical mix exposed to
UV light, the proteins became self replicating proto-RNA strands.

Post by A little knowledge
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.

Yes, I mention that about.

Post by A little knowledge
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

And it could've just around the corner as we get a better picture of that
early Earth environment
.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.

Scientist want others to prove them wrong. That advanced knowledge. Carole
one those people that have been convince science to dogmatic in nature, fix
and set in stone. That fix nature and set in stone describes religion, not
science.

Post by A little knowledge
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Science attempts to rewrite the hypothesis using the new data. Each
reiteration bring science close and close to the truth. Sort like working
out pi the last place. It brings figures close and close to perfection.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

Exactly, Vedic tales, myths and legends are no more true than Greek,
Norse, Egyptian or Hebrew legends.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
or that man is older than science currently says?

Man is not older than science curently says. Science currenty says man is about
200,000 years old as a species. Why would you expect to see official records
saying that the species is older than that?

And there you have it. Maybe she might think the Flintstones was a
documentary.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.

Only if you've never read anything on the theory of evolution. It is uncovered
there for all to see.

She also seems to believe in lots of nonsense, stick around in
misc.health.alternative for while.

[Government Shill #2]

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.

Think of it like this:

Generation 1 - tiny change - Generation 2
Generation 2 - tiny change - Generation 3
Generation 3 - tiny change - Generation 4
|
|
Generation 11 - tiny change - Generation 12
Generation 12 - tiny change - Generation 13
|
|
Generation 1000 - tiny change - Generation 1001
Generation 1001 - tiny change - Generation 1002
Generation 1002 - tiny change - Generation 1003


Equals
Generation 1 - HUGE change - Generation 1003

There are no "partially-evolved species" because each generation is very nearly
exactly the same as the previous, and next, generations.

But these tiny differences result in major changes of millions of years.

Shill #2
--
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice
whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own
homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.
Arthur C. Clark

[Bob Officer]

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.

Generation 1 - tiny change - Generation 2
Generation 2 - tiny change - Generation 3
Generation 3 - tiny change - Generation 4
|
|
Generation 11 - tiny change - Generation 12
Generation 12 - tiny change - Generation 13
|
|
Generation 1000 - tiny change - Generation 1001
Generation 1001 - tiny change - Generation 1002
Generation 1002 - tiny change - Generation 1003
Equals
Generation 1 - HUGE change - Generation 1003
There are no "partially-evolved species" because each generation is very nearly
exactly the same as the previous, and next, generations.
But these tiny differences result in major changes of millions of years.
Shill #2
--
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice
whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own
homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.
Arthur C. Clark

Great,explanation. Sir ship of some prime number.

[Government Shill #2]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:08:09 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Thanks. I think I heard Dawkins, or someone else, explain it in those terms.

Love the sig block. Stolen. :-)

Post by Bob Officer
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU

[Bob Officer]

Post by Government Shill #2
Thanks. I think I heard Dawkins, or someone else, explain it in those terms.
Love the sig block. Stolen. :-)

Post by Bob Officer
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU

It is. I seen a lot of Cleese's back in the day, this statement says so
much in so few words. He does explain Dunning and Kruger's nicely.

My last upper management supervisor took two week to figure out what bumper
stick on his car meant.

It read:
Drive is Missing
Call Kruger and Dunning
For Reward

Yes he was that dense. I suspect someone else explained it to him.

[Lu]

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:56:09 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:25:34 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scient
ific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancien
t-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.
-

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount
of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Post by A little knowledge

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they obviously
have not the first idea about.

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Post by A little knowledge

Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

I think they are evolving now. Have you noticed that the children today are
very tall with the girls taller and overly developed by the age of 14, or is
this happening only in my area of the country?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
or that man is older than science currently says?

Man is not older than science curently says. Science currenty says man is about
200,000 years old as a species. Why would you expect to see official records
saying that the species is older than that?

Post by A little knowledge
There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.

Only if you've never read anything on the theory of evolution. It is uncovered
there for all to see.
Shill #2
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick

--
Lu

[Government Shill #2]

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:56:09 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:25:34 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scient
ific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancien
t-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.
-

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount
of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Post by A little knowledge

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they

obviously

Post by A little knowledge
have not the first idea about.

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Post by A little knowledge

Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are

wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

I think they are evolving now. Have you noticed that the children today are
very tall with the girls taller and overly developed by the age of 14, or is
this happening only in my area of the country?

The scientific consensus appears to be that this has more to do with better
nutrition than evolution.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-we-getting-taller/
"If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists
believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important
factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature. The evidence
for this argument is threefold:"

Read the page for more information.

That said, we are surely continuing to evolve in other ways. Evolution never
stops. There is no goal to natural selection. There is no ultimate. A species
survives or it doesn't.

Shill #2
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick

[Lu]

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:51:50 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:56:09 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:25:34 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scie
nt
ific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about
the
origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided
selection,
which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-anci
en
t-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite
different
from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.”
National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.
-

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount
of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not
evolve.
The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Post by A little knowledge

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they

obviously

have not the first idea about.

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never
said
that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Post by A little knowledge

Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are

wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to
look
into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis,
and
has
done some useful experiments.
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and
we
move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

I think they are evolving now. Have you noticed that the children today are
very tall with the girls taller and overly developed by the age of 14, or is
this happening only in my area of the country?

The scientific consensus appears to be that this has more to do with better
nutrition than evolution.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-we-getting-taller/
"If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists
believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important
factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature. The evidence
for this argument is threefold:"
Read the page for more information.

Very good article for me. Clarifies a lot of the things I have been thinking
about over the years but never bothered to look up.

Post by Government Shill #2
That said, we are surely continuing to evolve in other ways. Evolution never
stops. There is no goal to natural selection. There is no ultimate. A species
survives or it doesn't.
Shill #2
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick

--
Lu

[A little knowledge]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:32:10 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Whatever ...not really the point.

Post by A little knowledge
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Whatever. Read my lips --- the point is that man didn't evolve out of
the swamp like modern science says.

What part of that don't you understand?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Let me explain it to you.
These days we are bombarded by information. Do you think I'm going to
read a novel to find out something that can be found from a dictionary
or wikipedia?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.

That is what Michael Cremo says isn't the case.
Michael Cremo is the guy on youtube who puts the case the modern
science is wrong in the origins of man and how long man has been on
the earth. Science says 100 million years, Cremo says evidence for up
to 1 billion years.

Then the vedic mob in india agree with Cremo.
They say that material life DEVOLVED from the spiritual realms.
Man consists of 3 parts - the physical, mental and spiritual.
Modern science does a mis-service when it attempts to rule out
anything except gross physical matter.

Post by A little knowledge
-

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

So what you're saying is that Darwinism deals exclusively with
evolution of the species and survival of the fittest -- and doesn't
include the origins of any/ all lifeforms (man, animal, vegetable).

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

OK.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they obviously
have not the first idea about.

Isn't this a type of arrogance to think that any other view than
mainstream is silly?
I think that mainstream everything is wrong, that there is a concerted
effort to keep people in the dark about the true origins and meaning
of everything.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Further explanation required.
If the first creature that existed was the amoeba, which then evolved
into fish, birds and so on, then apes and man, what the vedic theory
is saying is that there are no half man-apes, no half-anything other
animals such as half-fish-birds.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Science can be good.
Unfortunately we have something called a scientific dictatorship,
where certain evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit into the
accepted theory.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

Why don't you do some research yourself?
Apparently there are giants and homo evidence older than 100 million
years. All ignored because they don't fit into the mainstream story.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
or that man is older than science currently says?

Man is not older than science curently says. Science currenty says man is about
200,000 years old as a species. Why would you expect to see official records
saying that the species is older than that?

Post by A little knowledge
There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.

Only if you've never read anything on the theory of evolution. It is uncovered
there for all to see.
Shill #2

More research required.
I don't accept mainstream anything and think its all a load of
disinformation. I'd be surprised if it was correct.


--
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing


"The U.S. government does not study anything holistically. Everything
is studied in isolation from all else."
-- The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and
Trust (Manifesto Series) by Robert David Steele
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/05/robert-steele-at-libtechnyc-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/07/the-origin-of-education-and-mandatory-schooling/
"From an early age, we are forced into a mandatory school system that
requires and encourages youth to attend for a large portion of their
human life, for six hours a day. Each child is required to learn the
accepted version of reality in order to fit into the specific mold
desired by the elite. Just like television, a large part of school is
simply programming. It’s ironic how the same families behind the
funding are responsible for many inhumane atrocities that took place
throughout history. They are also behind big oil, big pharma, food and
other industries that are becoming more transparent as of late. Kids
who do not fit into the system and do not resonate with it are usually
labelled and medicated. Essentially, the whole point of school is to
shape the reality of the student."


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
" ...if we were really taught to critically think do you think we
would have the systems we have in place now? Our financial system? Our
health system and its corruption? Events like 9/11? Religions? Even
our education system for that matter. If we were actually taught to
critically think, education as we know it would collapse on itself and
a new system would be built. If we were actually taught to critically
think, the powers at be would not have the control they do now, this
is why we are sent to school from such a young age, and why fear is
used to get us to continue in our later years."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/09/20/understanding-vs-memorization/
"It is important we learn to understand the information we take in and
not simply memorize it, this will allow us to break each piece of
information down to its roots and find the truth or fallacy. It is
evident we rarely do this now by simply looking at the world we live
in. This does not mean we need to be skeptics or pessimists, or try
and logically think everything out, it simply means we should look to
understand our information and FEEL whether is bares truth. We need
not memorize information we receive from authority figures, it is a
choice, one we can all make from here on out."


Circular reasoning, also known as 'Begging the question'
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
eg of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God [and god never lies]"

[Dakota Watson]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 01:26:51 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Let me explain it to you.
These days we are bombarded by information. Do you think I'm going to
read a novel to find out something that can be found from a dictionary
or wikipedia?
I don't accept mainstream anything and think its all a load of
disinformation. I'd be surprised if it was correct.

You are so stupid, that you have no clue just how stupid you are.

[Bob Officer]

Post by Dakota Watson
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 01:26:51 +1100, A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Let me explain it to you.
These days we are bombarded by information. Do you think I'm going to
read a novel to find out something that can be found from a dictionary
or wikipedia?
I don't accept mainstream anything and think its all a load of
disinformation. I'd be surprised if it was correct.

You are so stupid, that you have no clue just how stupid you are.

Carole's words are the prefect and classic responce from a person suffering
from. Dunning Kruger syndrome.

Someone needs to sent them a note. They might be able to get a few more
papers just from her web site and Usenet postings.

[Government Shill #2]

Post by A little knowledge
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:32:10 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Whatever ...not really the point.

Post by A little knowledge
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Whatever. Read my lips --- the point is that man didn't evolve out of
the swamp like modern science says.
What part of that don't you understand?

What I don't understand is how you arrived at this conclusion after
demonstrating you have no idea what modern science says on the subject.

I grant that you seem to have a grasp on what other people say modern science
says, but they are wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Let me explain it to you.
These days we are bombarded by information. Do you think I'm going to
read a novel to find out something that can be found from a dictionary
or wikipedia?

The trouble is, your "dictionary" and "Wikipedia" are wrong.

Not only that, if you are going to criticise somebody's work, you should have
the decency to have at least read it.

If you read only one side of an argument, how can you form any sort of opinion
about who is right and who is wrong? Unless you are taking the side you happen
to like on faith.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.

That is what Michael Cremo says isn't the case.

I'm sorry, who?

Post by A little knowledge
Michael Cremo is the guy on youtube

A guy on YouTube?

So, on one hand I gave you a link to the text written by the man in question
(Darwin), but you are going to take the word of some guy on YouTube? Ok.

Post by A little knowledge
who puts the case the modern
science is wrong in the origins of man and how long man has been on
the earth. Science says 100 million years,

No. It doesn't.

Science says that the species we call Homo Sapiens, man, has been on Earth for
about 200,000 years.

Post by A little knowledge
Cremo says evidence for up to 1 billion years.

Sounds incredible. What is his evidence?

Post by A little knowledge
Then the vedic mob in india agree with Cremo.
They say

So no evidence, just claims?

Post by A little knowledge
that material life DEVOLVED from the spiritual realms.
Man consists of 3 parts - the physical, mental and spiritual.
Modern science does a mis-service when it attempts to rule out
anything except gross physical matter.

Modern science is *incapable* of exploring anything other than the natural
world. If you can't measure it, analyse it, and test it, science can not falsify
it, and therefore can not make any judgement on it.

You seem to lack any knowledge of the scientific method.

You say you like Wikipedia as a source. Here, try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If there is no evidence, and nothing which can be tested, then science is not
interested.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

So what you're saying is that Darwinism deals exclusively with
evolution of the species and survival of the fittest -- and doesn't
include the origins of any/ all lifeforms (man, animal, vegetable).

Again, as you cited previously "Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members
of the public."

If we dump the term Darwinism, and say what you mean, Evolution, then yes, that
is what I'm saying.

In fact Evolution itself does not talk about the origins of life.

Abiogenesis - Origins of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution - The change in the heritable characteristics of biological
populations over successive generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Darwin - Proposed Natural Selection as one of the means by which the
characteristics of populations change over the generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

OK.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they obviously
have not the first idea about.

Isn't this a type of arrogance to think that any other view than
mainstream is silly?

No! Not if the "other view" is misrepresenting what it claims to be wrong.

Your "other view" claimed that if Evolution is correct, then there should be
"partially-evolved species". Nowhere in the Theory of Evolution are
"partially-evolved species" suggested, and in fact, it says quite the opposite.
The theory says that any one generation is very nearly identical to the previous
and next, generations. The are gradual in the short term, and can be massive in
the long term, but *there is no great change from generation to generation*.

No crocodile aver gave birth to a Crocoduck. That's just creationist bullshit.

So when your "other view" makes false claims it is not arrogant to point this
out.

What is arrogant is to argue against something that you have never read, and
demonstrably don't understand.

Post by A little knowledge
I think that mainstream everything is wrong, that there is a concerted
effort to keep people in the dark about the true origins and meaning
of everything.

Yet when I gave you a link to the book written by Darwin you refused to read it
because it was too big?

You aren't *being kept in the dark*. You are keeping yourself in the dark.

The information is out there. Go and read it.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Further explanation required.
If the first creature that existed was the amoeba, which then evolved
into fish, birds and so on, then apes and man,

Yes, but what you are missing is that these are not discrete steps. A fish never
gave birth to a bird, or even a half fish-bird. And an ape never gave birth to
an ape-man.

In the case of humans, we had a common ancestor with apes. The ancestor was
neither human or ape. It may not even have looked like a man or an ape. The
population of these ancestors split and became isolated from the other
populations. One population gradually became apes. One population, generation by
generation, each very nearly the same as the one before and the one after,
slowly, over millions of years, changed from the ancestor into Australopithecus,
into Homo habilis, into Homo rudolfensis, into Homo erectus, into Homo
heidelbergensis, and finally into Homo sapiens (Note that I left out some of our
other ancestor species).

Post by A little knowledge
what the vedic theory
is saying is that there are no half man-apes, no half-anything other
animals such as half-fish-birds.

Ok. So what?

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Science can be good.
Unfortunately we have something called a scientific dictatorship,
where certain evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit into the
accepted theory.

This is not true. Any scientist who comes across evidence that would show an
existing theory to be wrong would win a Nobel Prize.

What I suspect has a bee in your bonnet is that the pseudo-science you find
appealing is rejected because it lacks the evidence it claims to have, and is
not capable of sustaining scrutiny of the scientific method.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

Why don't you do some research yourself?
Apparently there are giants and homo evidence older than 100 million
years. All ignored because they don't fit into the mainstream story.

Apparently?

apparently
adverb:
- used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain
it is true:
Apparently it's going to rain today.

- used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was:
She looks about ten, but apparently she's 14.

- used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain:


If the best evidence is only "apparently" then of course it will be ignored. You
can't test apparently.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
or that man is older than science currently says?

Man is not older than science curently says. Science currenty says man is about
200,000 years old as a species. Why would you expect to see official records
saying that the species is older than that?

Post by A little knowledge
There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.

Only if you've never read anything on the theory of evolution. It is uncovered
there for all to see.
Shill #2

More research required.
I don't accept mainstream anything and think its all a load of
disinformation. I'd be surprised if it was correct.

How can you know it's incorrect if you won't read it?

Don't go by what people on YouTube tell you. That is just faith. Check it out
for yourself. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. It is completely
wrong to be one sided.


Shill #2
--
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep
insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
- Carl Sagan

[Bob Officer]

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:32:10 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing. </sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Whatever ...not really the point.

Post by A little knowledge
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Whatever. Read my lips --- the point is that man didn't evolve out of
the swamp like modern science says.
What part of that don't you understand?

What I don't understand is how you arrived at this conclusion after
demonstrating you have no idea what modern science says on the subject.

She arrives at a conclusion that if it an alternate science claim, and some
nutjob says something she agrees with she will support their claim if if in
the long run it runs counter to other of her claims. It never occurs to
her at alternative science is based on a post hoc declaration with no
supporting evidence or observations. And remember Carole still doesn't
understand what a theory is or isn't.

Post by Government Shill #2
I grant that you seem to have a grasp on what other people say modern science
says, but they are wrong.

I seen some of her claims and they are just silly.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
This theory taught by mainstream can be proven to be false.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin... doesn't... have... a... theory... of... evolution.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

456 pages? ...no thanks

You'll attack "Darwinism", but you won't make the effort to find out what Darwin
actually said? Piss weak.

Let me explain it to you.
These days we are bombarded by information. Do you think I'm going to
read a novel to find out something that can be found from a dictionary
or wikipedia?

The trouble is, your "dictionary" and "Wikipedia" are wrong.

And his 1861 is not a novel.

Post by Government Shill #2
Not only that, if you are going to criticise somebody's work, you should have
the decency to have at least read it.
If you read only one side of an argument, how can you form any sort of opinion
about who is right and who is wrong? Unless you are taking the side you happen
to like on faith.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ?
"Though the term [darwinism] usually refers strictly to biological
evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of
life ..."
So what we're talking about here is science in general, darwinism
being one aspect of it. Don't want to get into a great debate over
exactly darwinism is or isn't.

So don't call it Darwinism. Call it Evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Basically, what science espouses is that all life evolved from the
primordial swamp and and evolved from small single-celled amoebas.

I'll accept that. I also have no problem with it as a scientific model.

That is what Michael Cremo says isn't the case.

I'm sorry, who?

A nut job which converted type a Buddhist cult.
He believe humans devolve from fallen spiritual beings.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Michael Cremo is the guy on youtube

A guy on YouTube?

Yeah... like that makes an authority or something..

Post by Government Shill #2
So, on one hand I gave you a link to the text written by the man in question
(Darwin), but you are going to take the word of some guy on YouTube? Ok.

Post by A little knowledge
who puts the case the modern
science is wrong in the origins of man and how long man has been on
the earth. Science says 100 million years,

No. It doesn't.
Science says that the species we call Homo Sapiens, man, has been on Earth for
about 200,000 years.

Post by A little knowledge
Cremo says evidence for up to 1 billion years.

Sounds incredible. What is his evidence?

Nothing it the cult's belief base on some Vedic myths. He like all his
kindred spirits point out what are geological oddities, and claim them as
proof for his belief and ignore a perfectly logic natural mechanisms.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Then the vedic mob in india agree with Cremo.
They say

So no evidence, just claims?

A lot of myths, legends and post host declarations, and circular logic.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
that material life DEVOLVED from the spiritual realms.
Man consists of 3 parts - the physical, mental and spiritual.
Modern science does a mis-service when it attempts to rule out
anything except gross physical matter.

Modern science is *incapable* of exploring anything other than the natural
world. If you can't measure it, analyse it, and test it, science can not falsify
it, and therefore can not make any judgement on it.
You seem to lack any knowledge of the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
If there is no evidence, and nothing which can be tested, then science is not
interested.

What science does is classify the untestable claims as unsupported. Pat the
believes on the had an tries to ignore the cult belief of the day. That is
until they want confrontation. Some people love poking cult members with
sharp sticks.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7]"
So darwinism is a general theory that covers all science explaining
the process of evolution etc relating to physical life on earth, and
NOT specifically what Darwin espoused.

Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members of the public.

So what you're saying is that Darwinism deals exclusively with
evolution of the species and survival of the fittest -- and doesn't
include the origins of any/ all lifeforms (man, animal, vegetable).

Again, as you cited previously "Darwinism is a term incorrectly used by members
of the public."
If we dump the term Darwinism, and say what you mean, Evolution, then yes, that
is what I'm saying.
In fact Evolution itself does not talk about the origins of life.
Abiogenesis - Origins of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Evolution - The change in the heritable characteristics of biological
populations over successive generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Darwin - Proposed Natural Selection as one of the means by which the
characteristics of populations change over the generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

And I a few days she will forget you ever posted those links or claim that
wiki is controlled by mainstream media.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
"The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate

"partially-evolved species"?

Meaning that if birds evolved from fish, where are the half-half
fish-birds?
Apparently there are none.

Because, if you understood Evolution, you would be aware that no offspring of
any creature ever has been, to any large extent, different to it's parents.
The changes described by evolutionary theory are minor, generation to
generation, but affect a given *population* of creatures, over a large amount of
time.
I pointed you to Talk.Origins last time. Did you visit it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A quote from there might help
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual..The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The
changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

OK.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Whoever wrote that has no idea what the theory of evolution is about. That's
totally hilarious!

Glad you're amused.
But unfortunately you fail to explain why it is so funny.

It is funny because the author is propounding on a subject that they obviously
have not the first idea about.

Isn't this a type of arrogance to think that any other view than
mainstream is silly?

No! Not if the "other view" is misrepresenting what it claims to be wrong.
Your "other view" claimed that if Evolution is correct, then there should be
"partially-evolved species". Nowhere in the Theory of Evolution are
"partially-evolved species" suggested, and in fact, it says quite the opposite.
The theory says that any one generation is very nearly identical to the previous
and next, generations. The are gradual in the short term, and can be massive in
the long term, but *there is no great change from generation to generation*.
No crocodile aver gave birth to a Crocoduck. That's just creationist bullshit.
So when your "other view" makes false claims it is not arrogant to point this
out.
What is arrogant is to argue against something that you have never read, and
demonstrably don't understand.

Surprise! Carole does it all the time.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
I think that mainstream everything is wrong, that there is a concerted
effort to keep people in the dark about the true origins and meaning
of everything.

Yet when I gave you a link to the book written by Darwin you refused to read it
because it was too big?
You aren't *being kept in the dark*. You are keeping yourself in the dark.

It is called willful ignorance. Sad isn't it.

Post by Government Shill #2
The information is out there. Go and read it.

Why read it, she believes she just scan a few pages in book or story,
believes she knows it all.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
" June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the
fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there
fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

This is just nonsense. Science, and the theory of evolution, has never said that
there should be half evolved anythings. Half-evolved is just plain stupid.
Nobody who claims there should be fossils of partial species understands the
theory.

Further explanation required.
If the first creature that existed was the amoeba, which then evolved
into fish, birds and so on, then apes and man,

Most likely it really virus. That's as primitive as one can get.

Post by Government Shill #2
Yes, but what you are missing is that these are not discrete steps. A fish never
gave birth to a bird, or even a half fish-bird. And an ape never gave birth to
an ape-man.
In the case of humans, we had a common ancestor with apes. The ancestor was
neither human or ape. It may not even have looked like a man or an ape. The
population of these ancestors split and became isolated from the other
populations. One population gradually became apes. One population, generation by
generation, each very nearly the same as the one before and the one after,
slowly, over millions of years, changed from the ancestor into Australopithecus,
into Homo habilis, into Homo rudolfensis, into Homo erectus, into Homo
heidelbergensis, and finally into Homo sapiens (Note that I left out some of our
other ancestor species).

Post by A little knowledge
what the vedic theory
is saying is that there are no half man-apes, no half-anything other
animals such as half-fish-birds.

Ok. So what?

So the Vedic belief, it isn't a theory, is ignored as a mythical tale. A
story... hand off for sociologist and culture anthropologist to study and
show maybe of that myth contributed to the Hindu cast system which arrested
and stagnated the growth of that culture. The Hindi culture remain
relatively unchanged from the time of Alexanders invasion to the British
annexation and conquest.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2
Partially-evolved species?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Post by A little knowledge
that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among
evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and
reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a
supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should
still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't
observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats
among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and
fully-formed."

This is amazingly dumb!

No, it makes perfect sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about. Read what the theory says,
not what the theory's opponents tell you what the theory says. They are wrong.

Post by A little knowledge

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
What this demonstrates is that what is taught in conventional science
is false, like everything else. everything you have been taught is
false. Time for a rethink.

What it demonstrates is that the author has no idea about the theory of
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Of course it's not a kOOksite, so I won't hold my breath.
Shill #2

Has it ever been demonstrated that a living thing can be created from
nothing?

The theory of evolution does not attempt to show that life came from nothing.
The theory of evolution demonstrate how simple life can evolve into complex
life.
For the demonstration of how life might come from nothing, you need to look into
a different theory called abiogenisis, not evolution. At this stage abiogenisis
doesn't have the answers, but it does have some interesting hypothesis, and has
done some useful experiments.
At this time no one knows how life came from nothing, but they are working on
it.

Post by A little knowledge
If so, it would then need to be proven that a living thing can evolve
into another higher lifeform. Has thing ever been done?

Yes. Read something on the theory of evolution written by someone who
understands evolution.

Post by A little knowledge
Like everything in our society -- history, reason for war, economy and
the trickle-down effect, financial speculation and the art of
financial leverage, medicine and the global control by pharmaceutical
medicine over alternatives, suppression of certain inventions due to
"national security", mass media lies and propaganda, etc ...
everything is crap. The whole system is just one big fat pack of crap,
lies invented to keep the people in the dark about the true nature of
existence.

This is why science is good. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong.
When they fail to prove the other scientist wrong, this is when an hypothosis
becomes a theory. Another scientist may prove the theory to be wrong and we move
on to another, better way of thinking.

Science can be good.
Unfortunately we have something called a scientific dictatorship,
where certain evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit into the
accepted theory.

This is not true. Any scientist who comes across evidence that would show an
existing theory to be wrong would win a Nobel Prize.

And there the type of scientist which live only to tear apart someone
else's work.

Post by Government Shill #2
What I suspect has a bee in your bonnet is that the pseudo-science you find
appealing is rejected because it lacks the evidence it claims to have, and is
not capable of sustaining scrutiny of the scientific method.

It happens here all the time with so called alternative medicine.

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
Where are the official records showing that giants lived on the earth,

There is none, because there were none.

Why don't you do some research yourself?
Apparently there are giants and homo evidence older than 100 million
years. All ignored because they don't fit into the mainstream story.

Apparently?
apparently
- used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain
Apparently it's going to rain today.
She looks about ten, but apparently she's 14.
If the best evidence is only "apparently" then of course it will be ignored. You
can't test apparently.

And another problem, Carole does not understand specific words have
specific meanings. In the technical word, we still use these distinctive
precise and accurate terms and meaning.

Carole doesn't understand their accurate distinct and precise meanings, and
when those meaning are pointed out to her she will call you "dumbed down".

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
or that man is older than science currently says?

Man is not older than science curently says. Science currenty says man is about
200,000 years old as a species. Why would you expect to see official records
saying that the species is older than that?

Post by A little knowledge
There is a coverup of the history of life on earth, and also a coverup
of the nature of life on earth.

Only if you've never read anything on the theory of evolution. It is uncovered
there for all to see.

More research required.
I don't accept mainstream anything and think its all a load of
disinformation. I'd be surprised if it was correct.

How can you know it's incorrect if you won't read it?

She could be suffering from a case of Morton's Demon.

Post by Government Shill #2
Don't go by what people on YouTube tell you. That is just faith. Check it out
for yourself. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. It is completely
wrong to be one sided.

At least she should read and understand what she is disagreeing with, would
you Think?

[Government Shill #2]

<snip>

Post by Bob Officer

Post by Government Shill #2
Don't go by what people on YouTube tell you. That is just faith. Check it out
for yourself. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. It is completely
wrong to be one sided.

At least she should read and understand what she is disagreeing with, would
you Think?

Sorry to snip most of your points, good points all, but the thread was getting a
bit unwieldy.

I debunk these things mainly for my own amusement. I find searching for the
source material to be educational and a pleasant pastime.

Whether the other person is willing to accept the answers is secondary for me. A
die hard conspiracist might never accept the points I make, but someone else
reading their posts and thinking "Good point" might be swayed by some
scientific, as opposed to pseudo-scientific, information.

It is very disappointing that Carol (?) wouldn't read the material given to her.
You're right, I would think someone interested in the subject would do the basic
research.

Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division

[Bob Officer]

Post by Government Shill #2
<snip>

Post by Bob Officer

Post by Government Shill #2
Don't go by what people on YouTube tell you. That is just faith. Check it out
for yourself. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. It is completely
wrong to be one sided.

At least she should read and understand what she is disagreeing with, would
you Think?

Sorry to snip most of your points, good points all, but the thread was getting a
bit unwieldy.

This groups tends to leave thing in most of the time because Carole Hubbard
like to life things out of context.

Twisting things by starting off with a comment like what you are says no is
"and twist the citation into nothing which you said or meant.

Post by Government Shill #2
I debunk these things mainly for my own amusement. I find searching for the
source material to be educational and a pleasant pastime.

And we have always been this way so much alike. We have share many news
groups in the past. And we willi the future it seems.

Post by Government Shill #2
Whether the other person is willing to accept the answers is secondary for me. A
die hard conspiracist might never accept the points I make, but someone else
reading their posts and thinking "Good point" might be swayed by some
scientific, as opposed to pseudo-scientific, information.
It is very disappointing that Carol (?) wouldn't read the material given to her.
You're right, I would think someone interested in the subject would do the basic
research.

And at least have read and understood the material. A few times she has
posted information which actually counted her claim. Carole has spent a
life of making an idiot out,of herself. She has her own little Morton's
demon living in her head.

Post by Government Shill #2
Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division

[Government Shill #2]

Post by A little knowledge
That is what Michael Cremo says isn't the case.
Michael Cremo is the guy on youtube who puts the case the modern
science is wrong in the origins of man and how long man has been on
the earth. Science says 100 million years, Cremo says evidence for up
to 1 billion years.

I looked him up.

Seems my assessment of him, based on what you have presented, was fairly
accurate.


"... 900 pages of what amounts to nonsense and feebly helpless ignorance of
geology, archaeology, or evolution, instead pushing an impressive array of
pseudo-archaeological and fraudulent “fossil” evidence of the kind that is so
stupid that even your stock creationist may stop referring to it after a while
because it’s too silly... "

"His screeds are of the kind that to a rational mind reads as well when the font
is set to wingdings."
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/593-michael-cremo.html


A review of his book:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html



Shill #2
--
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
the Clown.
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[Thomas Heger]

Post by A little knowledge
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:32:10 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing.</sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Whatever ...not really the point.

Post by A little knowledge
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Whatever. Read my lips --- the point is that man didn't evolve out of
the swamp like modern science says.
What part of that don't you understand?

We have practically not the faintest clue about how human beings came
into existence.

But from 'technical perspective' I would assume, this took quite a while
and certainly way, way longer, than we usually think.

A timeframe for human evolution should use an appropriate base unit. I
would say a million years as a grid should work.

But it could easily be several hundred million years of human
development, about what we have no clue at all.

(The 50,000+ years assumed by Darwin are simply a joke.)

E.g. the human foot is among those masterpieces, which has no comparison
at other creatures.

How many generations of trial and error would it take to create that
feature of the human body alone.

Other interesting and extremely complicated features are our ears and
our eyes.

There are certainly many animals, that hear better and have much better
eyes. But humans can do interesting things with their ears, too.

We have also the human brain and all the related questions, like the
origin of music or literature.

Another question is the origin of certain artifacts, for which no
convincing explanation exist (like Ica Stones, Puma Punku or the
underwater pyramids of Yunaguni).

Darwin was VERY wrong about times and the speed of evolution.

He assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, while the Earth
is more like 4.5 billion years old. That is a large scale of about four
orders of magnitude. And that is quite a lot for an error.

The other errors of Darwin are his inherent 'racism', which regards a
species as a 'race'.

He also introduced the concept of 'struggle for life' as natural
principle and assumed, that 'races' would fight for their own species.

This is not really plausible, but sounds more like British 18th century
politics.

Also ignored by Darwin was the question, whether or not the inherited
features could change over the lifetime.

This change of the genom in the lifetime is commonly called 'Lamarkism'.
This was rejected by Darwin, because this would not allow his racists
views.

But science is not about what British racists want the world to be, but
science is about the real world and nature as it really is.



TH

[Government Shill #2]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by A little knowledge
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:32:10 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing.</sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Whatever ...not really the point.

Post by A little knowledge
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Whatever. Read my lips --- the point is that man didn't evolve out of
the swamp like modern science says.
What part of that don't you understand?

We have practically not the faintest clue about how human beings came
into existence.
But from 'technical perspective' I would assume, this took quite a while
and certainly way, way longer, than we usually think.
A timeframe for human evolution should use an appropriate base unit. I
would say a million years as a grid should work.
But it could easily be several hundred million years of human
development, about what we have no clue at all.
(The 50,000+ years assumed by Darwin are simply a joke.)
E.g. the human foot is among those masterpieces, which has no comparison
at other creatures.
How many generations of trial and error would it take to create that
feature of the human body alone.
Other interesting and extremely complicated features are our ears and
our eyes.
There are certainly many animals, that hear better and have much better
eyes. But humans can do interesting things with their ears, too.
We have also the human brain and all the related questions, like the
origin of music or literature.
Another question is the origin of certain artifacts, for which no
convincing explanation exist (like Ica Stones, Puma Punku or the
underwater pyramids of Yunaguni).
Darwin was VERY wrong about times and the speed of evolution.
He assumed an age of the Earth of about 300,000 years, while the Earth
is more like 4.5 billion years old. That is a large scale of about four
orders of magnitude. And that is quite a lot for an error.
The other errors of Darwin are his inherent 'racism', which regards a
species as a 'race'.
He also introduced the concept of 'struggle for life' as natural
principle and assumed, that 'races' would fight for their own species.
This is not really plausible, but sounds more like British 18th century
politics.
Also ignored by Darwin was the question, whether or not the inherited
features could change over the lifetime.
This change of the genom in the lifetime is commonly called 'Lamarkism'.
This was rejected by Darwin, because this would not allow his racists
views.
But science is not about what British racists want the world to be, but
science is about the real world and nature as it really is.

Wow! Is there any subject you aren't willing to make yourself look stupid about?

Shill #2
--
With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens.
Friedrich von Schiller (1759 - 1805)

[Bob Officer]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by A little knowledge
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:32:10 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:31:14 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:35:19 +1100, Government Shill #2

Post by A little knowledge
Scientific Dictatorship
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating
the Occult Origin of Darwinism
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/15/the-ascendancy-of-the-scientific-dictatorship-part-one/
"As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power
structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific
dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of
science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses.
This article will show that the history and background of this
‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed
by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in
Freemasonry. "
Now since everything that is pushed by the establishment is wrong,
therefore it means that Darwinism is wrong, which confirms that those
who have alternative anti-Darwinism views, are most likely right.
One example is Michael Cremo who posts some interesting stuff on
youtube - giants lived before current man, man older than currently
espoused by current science, man didn't come out of the swamp or from
apes - see the 'Devolution of Man' by Michael Cremo.

Wow! An inept argument, based on a deluded rant. Convincing.</sarcasm>
By the way, "Darwinism", as you call it, is actually a theory about the origin
of species, and describes the actions of natural selection in driving
speciation. Darwin compares natural selection to human guided selection, which
has been used in the breeding of cows, chickens, dogs, cats, and corn for
hundreds of years, and shows how it (natural selection) could achieve similar
results (to selection by humans) over much longer time frames.
The theory of evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, starting with
Anixamender of Miletus in the 6th century BCE.
http://launchistory.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/theory-of-evolution-in-ancient-greece.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
"Darwinism" - A theory about selection processes.
Evolution - a theory about the origins of life, first hypothesised in ancient
Greece.
Theory - “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National
Academy of Sciences
Shill #2

Darwinism is a theory which says all life climbed out of the
primordial swamp and progressed from the lowest forms, amoeba type
lifeforms developed into mulluscs, jellyfish, fish, birds etc.
True?

No. Did you not read what I just wrote?
"Darwinism" - A... theory... about... selection... processes.

Yeah?
Isn't Darwinism the theory that says man evolved from apes, apes came
from something else, everything goes back to some one celled creature
that came out of the swamp.

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when
referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been
argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that
it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."

Whatever ...not really the point.

Post by A little knowledge
Let's break that down into it's relevant bits...
"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public..."
Amongst the public has means nothing about the actual science. The public
believes a lot of stupid things.
"...it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory."
What part of this do you need explained to you?

Whatever. Read my lips --- the point is that man didn't evolve out of
the swamp like modern science says.
What part of that don't you understand?

We have practically not the faintest clue about how human beings came
into existence.
But from 'technical perspective' I would assume, this took quite a while
and certainly way, way longer, than we usually think.
A timeframe for human evolution should use an appropriate base unit. I
would say a million years as a grid should work.
But it could easily be several hundred million years of human
development, about what we have no clue at all.
(The 50,000+ years assumed by Darwin are simply a joke.)
E.g. the human foot is among those masterpieces, which has no comparison
at other creatures.

Funny you mention that.
What does the raccoon back feet, the bears back feet, and the humans back
feet, as will and the rest of the apes and most monkeys back feet all have
in common?


Oh look,your entire line of non-rationality is undone.