Not that more proof is needed ...

[rwatts]

.
But ... but ... but such things aren't possible!!!

"It takes MILLIONS of years for these things to happen.
We know ... we're "scientists"... trust us!"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31356229


Bah, humbug ... nothing will convince these jokers anyway.

Jorge

Did you actually read the article Jorge? Or did you simply see the words:-

1) "Canyon cut", and

2) "Three savage floods", and

- presumed this was proof for the GC being carved in one massive flood, six thousand years ago?

[phank]

Darwin was a "scientist"? Really? No kidding?

Well, ya could'a knocked me over with a feather.

Jorge

Your rock-solid ignorance, on the other hand, couldn't be budged by a bolide impact.

[klaus54]

.
But ... but ... but such things aren't possible!!!

"It takes MILLIONS of years for these things to happen.
We know ... we're "scientists"... trust us!"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31356229


Bah, humbug ... nothing will convince these jokers anyway.

Jorge

What is the YEC explanation for these data?

K54

[klaus54]

Did you actually read the article Jorge? Or did you simply see the words:-

1) "Canyon cut", and

2) "Three savage floods", and

- presumed this was proof for the GC being carved in one massive flood, six thousand years ago?

Three fluddes are better than just one.

Oh, waitaminnit...

K54

[nmanning]

Darwin was a "scientist"? Really? No kidding?

Well, ya could'a knocked me over with a feather.

Jorge

Yes - his collected works:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Aren't you the fellow that passes himself off as having an earned PhD, yet 'earned' this degree by reviewing a few books and coughing up a few grand to some unaccredited Christian diploma mill?

[rogue06]

Yes - his collected works:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Aren't you the fellow that passes himself off as having an earned PhD, yet 'earned' this degree by reviewing a few books and coughing up a few grand to some unaccredited Christian diploma mill?

So his reputation precedes him I see.

[nmanning]

So his reputation precedes him I see.

It is well known.

[jordanriver]

Exactly.

No other scientist is as lied about, hated, and vilified by Christian extremists as Darwin is.

you say that like its a bad thing.

whats wrong with a little healthy iconoclasm,

....its not like its going to hurt darwins feelings, the old coot's dead.

[Roy]

No other scientist is as lied about, hated, and vilified by Christian extremists as Darwin is.

you say that like its a bad thing.

It is a bad thing...

...except to people who have no problem with lies.

Roy

[Carrikature]

So his reputation precedes him I see.

I suspect it's less a case of this and more a case of having been privy to the events as they were happening.

[Jorge]

.
.
I certainly don't need any more convincing about the IDEOLOGICAL agenda -- not scientific -- that Evolutionists have. Here's the latest news on that topic. BTW, note that this is their 4th (that's FOURTH) attempt at this. In typical fashion, they will continue pushing and pushing until they get what they want - this is not unlike the LGBT agenda which operates exactly the same way. I also noted how they try to make this into a DEM v. REP issue. Nonsense!


I've highlighted some of the more howling sections ...

"Democrats Push For National Charles Darwin Day 1:44 PM 02/03/2015

Democrats in the House have introduced a resolution to create a national holiday for the man behind the theory of evolution.

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes introduced House Resolution 67, calling for national recognition of Charles Darwin on his birthday, Feb. 12.

The resolution praises Darwin for the theory of evolution, a point that is likely to draw criticism from some conservatives.

“Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,” the resolution states.

The American Humanist Association, whose motto is “good without a god,” has been a driving force behind the movement. They started the International Darwin Day Foundation, whose “mission is to promote the public education of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and to encourage the celebration of science and humanity.”

“With climate change deniers and others with anti-science views threatening our planet, there is an urgent need for our politicians to openly voice their support for scientists and science education,” Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA, said in a statement.

This is the fourth year that the Darwin Day Resolution has been introduced, according to the AHA.

“Charles Darwin’s discoveries gave humankind a new, revolutionary way of thinking about the natural world and our place in it,” Himes said in a statement. “Without Darwin’s contributions to science, philosophy and reason, our understanding of the world’s complexity and grandeur would be significantly diminished.”

A 2014 Gallup poll showed that 42 percent of Americans believe in creationism, that God created man in his current form about 10,000 years ago. More than half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority saying God guided the evolutionary process.

The percentage who believe evolution was not guided by God is on the rise.

The resolution was cosponsored by a slew of democrats: Matthew Alton Cartwright, Stephen Cohen, Rosa DeLauro, Bill Foster, Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Alan S. Lowenthal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Adam Schiff, Louise Slaughter and Adam Smith.


Tragically, the statement that, "the percentage who believe evolution was not guided by God is on the rise" is very true. That is an unavoidable, predictable effect of the Humanists/Atheists/Theistic Evolutionists having taken over the "educational" system, cramming Evolution down the throats of the defenseless students and often lying by omission and by falsehoods.

Oh well ... as the saying goes, there will be Hell to pay!

SOURCE: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/de...es-darwin-day/

Jorge

**************************************************

Here's one to ponder:

Which was a greater SCIENTIST, with more significant
contributions to PURE SCIENCE - I. Newton or C. Darwin?

Anyone aware of the vast output and quality of Newton's pure scientific work would have no choice but to vote for Newton. Yet, there is a frenzy for a Darwin Day but nowhere near that passion for a Newton Day.

Care to guess why? A few hints:

(1) The "day" has NOTHING to do with science and,
(2) "Darwin made it possible to be ..."

I'll kick that dog every time I see it, bar none!

Jorge

[klaus54]

**************************************************

Here's one to ponder:

Which was a greater SCIENTIST, with more significant
contributions to PURE SCIENCE - I. Newton or C. Darwin?

Anyone aware of the vast output and quality of Newton's pure scientific work would have no choice but to vote for Newton. Yet, there is a frenzy for a Darwin Day but nowhere near that passion for a Newton Day.

Care to guess why? A few hints:

(1) The "day" has NOTHING to do with science and,
(2) "Darwin made it possible to be ..."

I'll kick that dog every time I see it, bar none!

Jorge

You have an infatuation with Eugenie Scott and Darwin's socks.

That is simply creepy...

K54

[klaus54]

.
Bah, humbug ... nothing will convince these jokers anyway.

Jorge

Looking in a mirror again?

:LOL:

K54

[rwatts]

**************************************************

Here's one to ponder:

Which was a greater SCIENTIST, with more significant
contributions to PURE SCIENCE - I. Newton or C. Darwin?

Anyone aware of the vast output and quality of Newton's pure scientific work would have no choice but to vote for Newton. Yet, there is a frenzy for a Darwin Day but nowhere near that passion for a Newton Day.

Care to guess why? A few hints:

(1) The "day" has NOTHING to do with science and,
(2) "Darwin made it possible to be ..."

I'll kick that dog every time I see it, bar none!

Jorge

When it comes to the metaphysical underpinnings of both sciences, there is not much difference. When it comes to the conclusions drawn from both, there is not much difference. When it comes to the earth shattering consequences, it's a bit hard to say. Newton sure showed how to remove God from the equation and really launch modern science. But the measure of Darwin's impact is shown by how many people continue to loath him and his ideas. When it comes to using their theories for ill, perhaps Newton has killed far more people than has Darwin. When it comes to personality, then you'd have to put Darwin well ahead of Newton in the context of niceness.

[rwatts]

You have an infatuation with Eugenie Scott and Darwin's socks.

That is simply creepy...

K54

I think it oscillated between Darwin's socks and his undies. But certainly he was infatuated with Scott. Called her a "witch", which I'm sure was a sweetheart's pet name. He really liked the lass.

Whether or not Jorge got to smell the socks and undies from Newton, I don't know. Nevertheless, he sure seemed to know a lot about the smells from Darwin's clothes. Must have had them bottled. Used them a bit like others once used snuff.