Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

I don't believe that is what I said.

The religion itself is an ideological system and an agenda. One entirely good description of it:

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html

That's a sort of a long article, but it is thorough. Again the idea of claiming that there is no basic agenda involved in Islam is idiotic and a form of denial.

Which Xtian agenda?--Like Islam there are lots of different sects of Xtianity. Do I believe some Xtian sects are capable of terrorism?---Well facts do support that conviction. Are they all capable of terrorism?--No, but neither are all sects of Islam terrorists.

You are trying to paint 2 billion +people with a brush that is aimed at 0.01% of the total.

Rap

I thought you said you didn't believe there was a muslim agenda. Sharia Law is a muslim agenda and there are muslims in the USA who are pushing it.

Give us the stats on Christian terrorism since 9/11 and then give us the stats on Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Thanks.

Look/read the latest news.

Fine effort at conflation.

Fail.

Whatever.

I want to destroy the theory of evolution and widespread belief in same; that would not harm any real branch of science including biological sciences.

Let's improve the question in fact...

Let's suppose it's about 1905 and the crowned heads and rulers of Europe along with Teddy Roosevelt were gathered at a special conference at the Versaille to discuss the future if any of the theory of evolution and suppose also that I had been born about 75 years earlier than I actually was and had gotten invited to the meeting.

Those guys were fairly bright and at least some of the major problems with evoloserism were known by 1905. It wouldn't have taken that much. They'd have all been saying things like:



They would have almost certainly outlawed and banned the teaching of evolution on the spot and rounded up all the Darwinists and social Darwinists and put them in zoo cages with the bars welded shut and signs warning people not to feed them.

NOW... the real question is, what effect if any would all of that have had on the biological sciences.

The answer is or should be obvious: they would be fifty or more years more advanced than they are now. Evolution is in no way, shape, or manner necessary or needed by any real branch of science and European civilization would have simply gone on from 1905 the way it had since the end of the Napoleonic wars; there would have been no world wars and England, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia would not have been turned into rubble on two separate occasions and, for that matter, the commie/libtard takeover of Russia would not have happened. All sciences would have proceeded uninterrupted.

Yes you are a living Lysenko. Your political zealotry would set all the advances in the biological sciences including agriculture, genetics, animal husbandry, microbiology, back a hundred and fifty years. Hundreds of millions would be dead be because of your misguided beliefs. Talk about Sharia driven nonsense, you are near the top of the list.

Agreed, the so called social Darwinism has been a load of misapplied crap. However; the actual biological, chemical, and physical theory of Darwin (and if not him--then Wallace) has been overwhelmingly supported along myriad lines of scientific investigation again and again and again.

Rap

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2010/917/print/

Bullshit. No branch of biology depends on evolution. If it did nothing in the biological sciences would work at all since evolution itself doesn't work. That's the basic result of every experiment which has ever been conducted starting with those early fruit fly experiments.

The trouble with that gunga, apart from you making it all up, which was excellently done, is that it assumes, as rap does, that progress in science does us some good. That it is a goal. Science is now used to solve problems science created.

We have no idea what would have happened if Erasmus had gone to the Diet of Worms and sided with one or the other instead of disengaging himself and standing aloof. Absolutely no idea.

As for evolution--everybody knew how to breed faster racehorses and pigeons, and juicier apples, and prettier orchids long before Darwin came along to write a long book about the bleeding obvious.

It's all an attempt to shift Christian sexual morality to one side by those who have infringed the rules or smell money if more people get infringing them. The science of it is a five minute job. Double attraction. Posing as a scientist with a five minute grounding and more rumpy-pumpy how you like it. It's easier than physics too.

I can understand why lefties hold on to their sacred cows like evolution. After all those years of paying attention in the public indoctrination center, it's kinda hard to accept the fact that you were being lied to.

Nice piece of revisionist dogma. Too bad it put the conclusion in front of the hypothesis. Consequently it's not science.

Like Lysenko you put realpolitik ahead of science.

Of course it's not science if you disagree with it. Scientists disagree with each other every day. All you know is what you've been fed. Open your mind. Expand your intellect. I'm surprised at your closed mindedness. I thought lefties were so open minded?

Bubbie, I learned evolutionary theory on the farm and the kitchen table, not in public school. My father was a microbiologist, my grandfather a corn and hog farmer---you have no idea of the benefits reaped as a result sound science by people like Darwin and Mendel.

Have you ever read 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' Bub? Cause I have, and the majority of it's 500+ pages is spent making arguments against the theory. Unfortunately, for those that don't understand the scientific method (like apparently you*) none of the critiques held water. The same has held for the last 150 years.

BTW Darwin was only the first with the theory of natural selection. Like all revolutionary scientific theories and technological advances it's time had come. If Darwin hadn't advanced his theory, Wallace wasn't far behind with the same theory.

Rap

*possibly as the result of the creationist, not much of a, biology teacher I had in public high school.

I read it bubbie--it's not science not because of it's hypothesis. It's not science because it doesn't follow the scientific method--at best it's data mining at worst dogma.

Rap

Spendi--the man who wrote the equations for inherited traits (faster race horses, pigeons, and juicier apples) was Gregor Mendel, not Charles Darwin.