Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I like the idea that we require any graduate student in science to take a course on NONSENSE AND ITS DETECTION. I volunteer to propose one such course in an earth science department.

That sounds great, farmerman. Let us know if your proposal is accepted. This was my favorite part of that essay:

What a ridiculous flight of fancy. I can imagine the arms flinging in an expansive gesture in the direction of the celestial spheres on the words "boundless freedom" . Arseholes are insurance. They insure you from constipation. Try writing about your precious CERN project, which is inflating the price of beer, after a week of constipation.

If I was hammering and sawing away in the freezing barn day after day to construct a currach authentically, according to a drawing in the Maritime Museum, at least I would be aware that my boundless freedom was getting out of the way of the wife for a spell of peace and quiet. And I would make Christmas toys for the orphans rather than some vehicle on which to load a pile of my favourite affectations concerning any one of the topics it has paid to get affected with.

Landlubbers with boats are always affected about it. I've known quite a few in my time. From those who tow them behind their car and bring them home and park them in the drive to those who have them moored in the Marina. The richest of them fell overboard one day and drowned. He was having a weekend with his mistress. We were all mortified.

Don't get me wrong. I was a bundle of affectations myself for a fair while. I once even had a blow-wave. I know all about affectations. I've thrown most of them off now. I do still take the pots out of the sink before having a piss and I only ever fart in public places if I can do it silently.

I know the strategies employed in deeply felt affectations. I learned very early not to have a toughness affectation. Do what you have to do.

Evolution theory is an affectation. It allows the display of all manner of signs of superiority as well it might seeing as how such displays are a distinct mark in the beasts, fowls and fishes. Christian theology starts with humility. And media would be ill-served by a population practicing humility. You can add 2 and 2 I presume.

A free person doesn't give a shite about where we've come from or scraping "sea-food" out of the bowthrusters. History is His story. And it is peopled with fascinating human beings and wonders. It is not an affectation.

If I announced that I was going to embark on constructing an authentic currach in an outhouse my fellow-sufferers would think I was having them on. If I got started they would think I'd gone daft. If that's boundless freedom you can shove it up your arse.

All our freedom is bounded. Are you trying to say mine is and your's isn't. You live by such assertions if you want.

Anybody can talk about such things as if talking about it means the talker is an expert nonsense detector without any further evidence being required.

In my response to Mr Haynes, who wande quoted, I did some practical nonsense detecting.

see I rest my case. Spendi is just a bundle of brownian movement with apparently no point of focus.

spendi, Nonsense detection is very simple; it doesn't have any evidence or fact in support of it.

When I hear gushing expressions of boundless freedom my nonsense detector switches on. And coming from a determinist too.

I noticed you earlier making high sounding noises about some ideal utopian fantasy without any further explanations.

When I provide a demo of actual nonsense detection, as I did, it falls upon your deaf ears. You're a non sequitur from top to toe. The invalid premiss on which you pirouette is that you are the bee's knees. All the conclusions are the obvious result.

"You're a non sequitur from top to toe."

This is just an example of your boorish writing style which this forum is plastered with and it often smells in here because of bullshit. A person cannot be a non sequitur.

Please, either open a dictionary or stay out of the pub so perhaps we can understand half of what you write.

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540

1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

You're one too Wiz.

Any inferences that you draw on the question here do not follow the premiss you start with which is that you know what you are talking about.

Did I pre-miss something?

Yes- you premissed the feminist agenda and you're a bloke.

That's non-sequiturianism without knobs on IMHAHO.

Premissed isn't a word, either -- but that happens often when someone is tipsy. Are we trying to be clever again making up words and definitions? You should start a daffynitions thread.

Premissed, if it were a word, would likely mean someone who is a man who used to be a woman.

Acts of the Apostles. Chapter 2.

Actually, thought it doesn't come up on a Google search but shows a correction to the modern spelling, "premiss" is an arcane variation of premise. So I'm sorry that your weren't drunk yet and write mostly in mangled Old English.

The word is in both my smaller dictionaries Wiz. Thus it is sure to be in the larger ones because they don't miss anything out of the smaller ones in the larger ones. Neither has "fuckwit" . Has your's?

Funny you should say that about mangled old English though. When I read it I had just returned to my keyboard from an hour on the sofa watching an episode of Jewel in the Crown which is being run on Sky Arts everyday as a special treat for the viewers of such a wonderful TV channel at this season of festive spirit of glad tidings and goodwill to all men. The solstice ceremonies are for goodwill to the ladies.

Watching those delicious montages unfold my mind was wandering a little and the notion came into my head that people such as those in that small scene I quoted from the Acts of the Apostles would not have spoken of boozing in that manner. They were poor people. Alcohol was a luxury. The Romans had probably found that the local temperment didn't mix with cheap alcohol. It is a rather flippant jest. The last bit translates as "the pubs are not open yet". And implies that they will all be pissed shortly after they do open.

Which is a scene much more authentically placed in the taverns in London when the assembled clergymen, bishops and professors were relaxing after another long day "translating" a load of old texts into what became known as the Authorized Version. By King James. 1st. or 2nd I think. I'm not well up on irrelevancies.

If I am right, and such casual talk of boozing would not be very common to the poor rubes of Galilee, then I think I might have discovered an anachronism.

Some people watch historical drama programmes looking for anachronisms in the dress, decor, and speech mannerisms. With Tony Curtis they jump out of the screen.

I do feel confident though that whoever it was who composed those four verses had his tongue in his cheek.

It has been said that Darwin also was on a leg-pull. One might reasonably expect irony to develop at the same pace as science from 1611 to 1859.

I've seen a production of Doctor Atomic this weekend on Sky Arts. 3 hours. Fantastic sets from the Met.

It's a right bundle of laughs. It has the Venus of Willendorf in it. Ibsen woman too. The mad scientists. Cigarettes even.

You guys should all see it.

Happy boxing day there spendi. YOU ACTUALLY PICKED TENNESSEE??

Thank you fm.

I did actually pick the Titans. I think they were all a bit pissed so my loss has some upside to it. They showed the QB's eyes a few times in close up and he did look somewhat detached.

But your remark can come glibly from those who await the outcome before committing themselves.

I would think the John Adam's "Dr. Atomic" had sets from the Met -- it was staged and videotaped by the Met at Lincoln Center in 2008 and I recently saw it on PBS Great Performances from the Met. It's subject is Robert Oppenheimer:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/gp-at-the-met-doctor-atomic/introduction/429/

I'm not sure if the more recent production by the Netherlands Opera was recently telecast:

It was the Mets:

http://www.skyarts.co.uk/opera/article/met-operas-doctor-atomic/