DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

Darwin is dead and his unscientificracist ideas should to be buried also.

Led by the atheistic and misnamed National Center for Science Education and enabled by the main-stream media, colleges, museums, and public schools have launched a last ditch effort to salvage Darwinism.The theme is a yearlong celebration based upon Darwin's 200th birthday on February 12 and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his famous book on November 24.

In my state, West VirginiaUniversity has already placed a newspaper add listing events WVU will use to honor Darwin.Revealing consummate hypocrisy is the fact that WVU evolutionist professors are exposed as Debate Dodgers at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.

Universities and, museums, if public funded, are using tax-payer money to celebrate a man whose ideas have led to the destruction of untold numbers of human lives.What is even more objectionable is that it is a certainty that the public schools, nationwide, will be a focus of this avalanche of propaganda.As a recently retired public school teacher, I find that thought quite disturbing.

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials, as well as the ACLU, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science. I always let the students figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students.

Few teachers will dare do what I did, especially with today's political situation.Therefore, public school students remain brain-washing subjects for atheists who use cowardly or uninformed educators to propagate their dogma of evolutionism.

Evolutionists use a "bait-and-switch" method of hood-winking gullible children as well as adult products of public schools.Depending on the success of public school brain-washing and the tendency of public school graduates to be too lazy to investigate the facts for themselves, evolutionists mix the term "evolution" with real scientific facts that have nothing to do with the evolution from a particle to a president.

While they put on a good show, behind the scenes evolutionists are scurrying to find a way to explain life without Darwinian references.

Darwinism is all a facade. Darwin's icons (such as the finch beaks) are shams and his disciples want to censor scientific facts about those icons from students.Even the famous Miller-Urey experiment was scientifically debunked years ago.Public school students will not see that in their textbooks or hear that from their teachers.

Public school students are being misled by the imaginative art and wishful thinking of Darwin devotees.A small (25 page) booklet, Biology for the 21st Century (Mastropaolo, 2005.Available from the author at Mastropaolo@surfside.net.) clearly exposes the forgeries and frauds that have accompanied evolutionism throughout history.Bio21C also points out that the exact opposite of evolution is scientific because "billions of people for thousands of years have seen…that all things, viable and nonviable alike, are ravaged by time and that process is found with absolute consistency throughout the universe and is called, devolution." (pg.3)Also, "from trillions of observations by billions of observers for thousands of years, all life forms are fixed…" (pg. 20)In other words, evolution is the exact opposite of reality.

This article began by declaring that Darwin's ideas were racist.The complete title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. There is ample proof that evil men, following what Darwin believed, have committed atrocities upon humans.Even the liberal Washington Post recently ran an article on this subject (Basest Instinct,January 3, 2009; Page C01.Available on line.)

Amazingly, many Christian (in name) churches are being willingly recruited to align themselves with Unitarians, atheists, and other left-wing true-believers in Saint Darwin.The NCSE knows that one "collar" is worth ten Ph. D.'s in persuading the people in the pews that Darwinism is compatible with biblical beliefs. To counter the propaganda pastors are encouraged to sign the Creation Letter at http://kcsg.wordpress.com/. Also, churches are encouraged to invite speakers from local Creation Science groups and have a Creation Sunday..

To celebrate the life of a theology student (Darwin) in the public schools is equivalent to endorsing an "inverted-fantasy religion taught in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America" (Mastropaolo).

Someone said: "Evolution isbad science, bad thinking, bad logic, and certainlybad theology".Society and public schools would be much better served by celebrating the real scientists such as Louis Pasteur or Francesco Redi.

Let's dump Darwin's beliefs and leave his memory buried with him in the English churchyard.

SamCogar wrote:Now if the God of the Bible or some other Intelligent Designer ....... designed the Earth and the humans that live upon it, ......... just why would he/she design humans to breathe in oxygen (O2) and exhale that ole Earth destroying, human killing, Global Warming carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Sounds to me like a pretty dumbassed design.

.

SamCogar wrote:Now if the God of the Bible or some other Intelligent Designer ....... designed the Earth and the humans that live upon it, ......... just why would he/she design humans to breathe in oxygen (O2) and exhale that ole Earth destroying, human killing, Global Warming carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Sounds to me like a pretty dumbassed design.

.

Debating techniques, public speaking prowess, fancy PowerPoint files, and stacked audiences do not sway scientists, and for good reason. We are much more concerned with the EMPIRICAL DATA.

Keli wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Now if the God of the Bible or some other Intelligent Designer ....... designed the Earth and the humans that live upon it, ......... just why would he/she design humans to breathe in oxygen (O2) and exhale that ole Earth destroying, human killing, Global Warming carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Sounds to me like a pretty dumbassed design.

.

Why would evolution do the same?

ziggy wrote:

Debating techniques, public speaking prowess, fancy PowerPoint files, and stacked audiences do not sway scientists, and for good reason. We are much more concerned with the EMPIRICAL DATA.

But religion and its associated mythical hype and superstitutions are not about emperical data. It is about faith in ones or others of dozens of so-called Prophets- and / or faith in some of hundreds of various versions of dogma and doctrines.

SamCogar wrote:

Keli wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Now if the God of the Bible or some other Intelligent Designer ....... designed the Earth and the humans that live upon it, ......... just why would he/she design humans to breathe in oxygen (O2) and exhale that ole Earth destroying, human killing, Global Warming carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Sounds to me like a pretty dumbassed design.

.

Why would evolution do the same?

Well, I guess that wasn't quite as dumbassed as was putting nipples on a man's chest.

ps: TH, I am looking forward to the same reply from you concerning that one.

.

SamCogar wrote:

Keli wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Now if the God of the Bible or some other Intelligent Designer ....... designed the Earth and the humans that live upon it, ......... just why would he/she design humans to breathe in oxygen (O2) and exhale that ole Earth destroying, human killing, Global Warming carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Sounds to me like a pretty dumbassed design.

.

Why would evolution do the same?

Well, I guess that wasn't quite as dumbassed as was putting nipples on a man's chest.

ps: TH, I am looking forward to the same reply from you concerning that one.

.

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

What is the math behind natural selection? Obviously natural selection exists, but it can also obviously select only between previously existing organisms. What is the math behind the assumption that natural selection, a long time, and mutations have brought us "here" from amoebaes?

And this is a sincere questions, incidentally. I would like to see how the math works out. Was it Chomsky or Dawkins who tested the "million monkey" game by setting letters in their "correct" places once they were found?

If math is not on Priest's side, can you show me where it is on yours?

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

You have a gift.

bmd wrote:

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

You have a gift.

Thank you. But I was hoping for a substantive retort.

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

You have a gift.

Thank you. But I was hoping for a substantive retort.

Okay. Your gift is being a pompous ass.

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

If you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anything.

SheikBen wrote:What would you say is the overall rate of mutations in people? Amoebas? Cats?

Of those mutations, what is the overall rate of those being negative, neutral, or positive?

Given the hypothesized existence of many, many neutral mutations (suggested by among others the Keith Sceptic of the previous forums, who I truly miss), what would the odds be that a given neutral mutation would be passed on to the next generation?

Those are the kinds of math questions that I should very much like to hear you answer.

SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, bmd, the "other people are jerks too" defense doesn't do anything for me. If you can't be courteous at least be quiet.

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

You know, you really have a gift. Here you claim to be an educator, and I am asking to be educated.

Do you treat your students this same way?