Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I won the lottery yesterday. My little boy persuaded me to buy a £1 scratchcard because it had a picture of Top Cat on it. I won £2, I'll try not to let it change me.

Herbert Hoover, an engineer, said--



I know that the facts of the Great Crash overwhelmed the economic side of Mr Hoover's argument. And himself.

But does it still apply to social questions? And is the matter of this thread an economic or a social one? Does it, indeed, still apply to economic questions now that the conditions in the early 30s are not the conditions now.

Are anti-IDers all centralising federalists beating down States Rights with an evolution club? They have certainly flung much invective at various elected representatives in State assemblies. And at those in lesser positions.

sounds like youre scratching the bottom of your conceptual barrel spendi. That last post was even more lame than your previous contributions. However, keep trying, youll never be a MArk Twain or even a Dave BArry, but Im sure you amuse yourself with your "wit".
After all, youve just learned that William Jennings Bryan was NOT a US president. Congratulations on the discovery.

More flaccidity at the bedroom door fm. I suppose you are going to jump all over my typo from now until The Rapture .

We can presume from what you say that you are tacitly admitting that anti-IDers are all centralising federalists beating down States Rights with an evolution club? It's the only feasible explanation for your side-step.

spendi, Good imagination on "evolution club," but the only club there is are the facts that overrides the bull shite the creationists try to push. You haven't provided one FACT about creationism, and you never will, but your imagination is very entertaining!

How about, 'In the beginning?'

Genesis has too many errors and omissions, and planet earth is older than 7,000 years.

There was a beginning though.

Humans estimate that to be about 4.5 billion years ago, and that's only a guess.

I love the way you say humans estimate this as 4.5 billion years ago as if another species like the dolphins has a different figure. I'm only joking, I wasn't trying to suggest that Genesis was an accurate descrition of what happened on Earth. It all goes a bit downhill after 'In the beginning.'

I have continually provided the one fact that drowns all other facts: that believers in Creationism produced our mighty culture and I, for one, having read a fair lot about previous life-styles, am inordinately grateful.

I am happy to give the new experiment of yours a hearing if you will give us some idea of how it works in practice as I have challenged you to do on more occasions than it is decent for me to have to remember.

So, how did the Asian countries end up with religions thousands of years before the time of your god?

How the **** do I know?

What difference does that make to the teaching of a subject which abolishes the fond beliefs of millions of virtuous and morally upright people, and, okay--small minded people, if it makes you feel better to call them that, and who firmly believe that the abolition will result in disaster.

Undermine that belief then we can all let it all hang out.

You are unable to compare religions of the world, and the impact they have had on the different cultures' morals.

I could pass muster at a cocktail party on the matter I think.

For sure!

when you call Bryan a "former US president" thats not a typo, thats a bit of ignorance. Try not to opine about the stuff you know little or nothing about. K?

only if everyone else is as hammered as spendi

Look fm--four things were the cause of my error.

1-I had been on the "Race for the White House" thread half the day.

2-I was reading about Bryan in Hofstadter's book of 12 essays the American Political Tradition and the other essays were on presidents.

3- I came to the quote I did in the Bryan essay before it was obvious that Bryan wasn't a president.

4-I was too interested in the quote to be concentrating properly about minor details. As I have explained before, a quote stands on its own without reference to who said or wrote it.

But I will admit that I understand your joy at my error as it excused you from dealing with the substance of the post which you proved singularly unable to do. When a mistake like that saves your blushes you really are grasping at straws.

I'm also not convinced that Bryan was not president of something or other.

Further to that--why would I be reading such a book if I was not a bit ignorant of such matters? I daresay many Americans are too.

And now you have returned to the matter could you explain, if the quote represents a truth, which I think it does, how you got your convictions because that is the crux of the debate here.

If we can all plausibly represent our convictions then how we arrived at them is really the main point. I arrived at mine after about 20 years of having the same ones you do on this topic. I changed my mind on the religion issue with experience and study.

My experiences with ladies led me to the conclusion that the Church's teachings on sexual matters are correct and that rejecting them is cheating. Copping out. Rank misogyny. And nowhere near as much fun as adhering to them.