Questions For Which Evolutionists Have No Answers

Oh chrissakes, somebody untied spendis leather restraints.

I don't recommend that fm.

I suppose it's a vision but I see Spendius living in a suburban tract outside Des Moines Iowa. After working 6 days as a vacuum cleaner salesman he arises early on a sunday morning, puts on his bird watching outfit of tweed hand woven in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Fills the sterling hip flask with Bombay gin, fires up the VW Jetta and heads for the bosque along the river. He has his mp3 playing in one ear (Mr Jones) and Bushnell field glasses hanging from a strap around his neck. His 2 year old Redwing waterproof boots just barely broken in. He leaves the paved path and returns to nature. !/2 a mile for his Jetta he sits down on a cottonwood log and takes a long slow pull from the flask.
Four hours later he returns to the Jetta, drives towards home stopping at the Quik Way for a mint coffee and a package of twinkies. Home again jiggety jig, flips on the big screen, shoves the Cocker Spaniel out of the LazyBoy recliner and settles in for an afternoon of Bud Light watching All Star Wrestling. He notices he still has the Bushnells around his neck and has never removed the lens caps.

Speaking of binocs Theres a foto op showing Bush with some generals, apparently overlooking some military dingus with a big set of 10X 75's.

In the photo, he has the lens cap still on the binoculars and hes lookin through them. "Priceless".

Is it available on the web? I'd love to see that.

spendi, I said fear can be rational or irrational. That you think what you think is rational is enough; you only need to satisify yourself about its rationality.

Like Jimmy Carter, Chuck Darwin is a legitimate candidate for stupidest white man ever to walk the Earth. Newt Gingrich stated the problem fairly succinctly in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic processes simply has to affect human relationships, and tens of millions of graves give mute testimony to the nature of the political ramifications of evolutionism and the movements based on it.

But it is not as if Chuck Darwin wre the only member of this little club which comprises authors of dead theories from past centuries. Much of what you read about astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology these days is just as bad, and by that I refer to the continuing babbling about black holes, "big bangs", "dark matter", "dark energy", and various sorts of things which more than anything else remind the listener of the kinds of things Cotton Mather used to talk about at witchcraft trials. "Dark matter" for instance is said to comprise 95% of the mass of the universe without there being any sort of an explanation as to why we are not having to vacuum this stuff up off our carpets four or five times a day.

A buddy of mine out in Arizona has now written a fabulous book which throws some light on these kinds of topics and provides a totally rational alternative for the sort of junk physics which permeates so much of what we read:

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm



The little book in fact comes with ringing endorsements from several heavyweights in the field of plasma physics including Tony Peratt of Los Alamos:

gunga wrote-



He was pretty hot at the rut job after the 5 years on the Beagle doing what comes naturally.

9 kids three of which died as children and others were a bit iffy as human specimens. Pigeon breeders would have tried something different. He was still banging it into his dear lady when she was a bit over the hill.

But he was a definite fan of nepotism, heresy to an evolutionist of course, and subjected his poor body to a range of quack docs and a snake oil salesman or two.

**********

It has been said that a writer should be so separated from his work that he refines himself out of existence and sits back paring his fingernails. If dyslexia's little fantasy is anything to go by I must have succeeded in that objective at least. About the only thing he has got right is my sex. Thanks for the compliment dys.

I presume Mr Jones refers to Ballad of a Thin Man. Guess why "Jones" dys.



Gee-the cap fits dys.

I like this . The critique of Charles Darwin coming from the great minds of the likes of Spendi and gunga.

Im not sure the point that you wish to underpin with your friends book gunga. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and is , as usual, just some kind of diversion to imply a bit of "credibility by association". Anyone can write a book or two, and now , in the age of self-publication, we dont have to worry about the rules of peer review of validity.

When someone like gunga calls someone like Darwin "stupid" with no similar body of compelling work to counter-assert what Darwin said, one is dancing on the edge of pathological self -importance.

___trying to revert to where this thread began, Id like to reinsert a comment that Goldschmidt , due to his "beliefe" in saltation theory (or a constant reliance on what later became known as a subgroup of Punctuated Equilibrium), Goldschmidt thought that chromosmes and genes were mere segments of a more holistic system that acted extra nuclear and, of which, genetic mutation was mostly irrelevant, After Watson and Crick's work in the resolution of DNA's structure(which goes all the way back to 1953) , Goldschmidt became pretty much marginalized.

He wasnt stupid, he wasnt a "denier of evolution" as gunga incorrectly believes, he just had his own process mechanisms to propose, most of which were dead wrong. His coining of the term "hopeful monsters" although flippant,is still considered a valid term, although not for the reasons given by Goldschmidt, whose prose style was rather similar to our own spendi(convoluted and dull).

Even Ernst Mayr had admitted that, in his early days, he was a Lamarkian.

Nepotism is part and parcel of evolution, of course. How else do your genes get passed on?

But it felt witty, I'm sure, and that is the point, after all.

Nepotism has nothing to do with genes. It has to do with promoting offspring simply because they are offspring and without reference to their abilities. It is social not biological. It can apply both ways in adoption cases. It obviously supports monarchy and results in the whole power elite having an average IQ of 100 and quite often people with power being in the 85 range. It is destructive. The celibacy of the Roman Catholic priesthood is demanded to prevent the effects of nepotism. The temptation to indulge in it is well nigh irresistable which is why it is so dangerous. It might even explain your current difficulties. (see Politics forum).

I don't know if it was my wit being referred to but there was no wit intended. I just gave a few facts. It neither felt witty and nor was it witty.
Has patiodog any comment on the facts.

I got the number of kids wrong. It was 10 . His wife was 31 on marriage and 48 at birth of last child. She was his cousin and his suspicion that inbreeding was causing a problem to his offspring didn't inhibit his Harry Stubbs approach. He must a been a very sexy man with his boils, his dizzy spells, his eczema, his epilepsy, his flatulence, his gout, his headaches, his heart problems, his inflamed lips (all the better to kiss her with), his vomiting and his various treatments to say nothing of the stench of boiled pigeon which must have hung on him like a shroud. She looks a right little raver in a picture I have of her at 50. It must have been a hotbed of passion.

This is a Science topic patiodog not a jest braying one. You are supposed to attempt a little research at the very least. Some of our viewers rightly expect it.

I notice fm confines himself to assertions viz-



rather than take on the points he purports to be dealing with. A sure sign of nepotism somewhere. The points I refer to were presented in the most delicate fashion. I could easily have made them in a much more forthright manner.

It is quite normal when someone perceives convolution for them to reach for a pejoritive term such as "dull" to blow snow over why they find it outside their ken. Other explanations make them uncomfortable. So it's dull. It basically means they are speechless.

Possibly an attempt to design US educational policy with a few quick asides, time permitting.

To respond to Spurious in his own language:

babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble

patiodog and fm didn't take that much trouble to put their blurts in.

What exactly are you trying to say about my post. Which part of it are you objecting to or is it that it is beyond your reach.

Gee- I almost said intellectually.

If ever there was an argument for ID it is the mental state of anti-IDers.

With you lot in charge of education I fear a rapid descent into a very noisy chaos.

I'm sure Peter Gallagher thinks so.

Say, Spurious, you contradicted your own definition of nepotism.

I am hilariously amused to see anyone contend, however, that a thread by Gunga Din is about science. That was a good one . . . a real knee-slapper . . .

I didn't contend that the thread was about science.

I have long since given up being quite so naive as that.

What was my contradiction on nepotism. I like to have my faults explained to me then I can eradicate them but I can hardly do that on an assertion. Able me 2 know. That's what I'm here for.

However, earlier . . .



Therefore, i consider that the member posting is lying.

You can't tease out the social (which is to say, behavior) from the biological. Whatever social behaviors keep genes going win, period. There is no referee, no arbiter, and no penalties for not playing fair. If your genes get passed along, you win. I know that isn't cricket -- but, then, we're not talking about cricket.

"Contend" means to assert. I didn't assert that the thread was about science. I stated it as a fact.

I don't contend that it is 10:10 A2K time. I state it.

babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble
babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble

patiodog wrote-



I'm afraid I don't understand that.

Nepotism is psychological and a complex matter. It has nothing necessarily to do with biology. A baby adopted by an ambitious couple will be given advantages that have nothing to do with genes. That would be conscious. An unconscious case would be when babies get mixed up in the maternity wards as sometimes happens.

Presumably Madonna will use nepotism to promote the welfare and career of the child she is said to be adopting from Africa.