Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

spendi, Math is but one area of science that is used as a tool of science. What is revealed from the use of math in science are the subjects of contention between science and creationism. Much of what we learn from math/science is that the bible is a hoax, starting with the seven day creation, 7000 years ago, and the great world flood that's been proved false from geologic time science and carbon dating.

I tend to agree that if you are going to pile shite up you might as well pile it high and I enjoyed reading Mr Fitzgerald's drivel.

I must admit though that I stopped reading when I reached "pseudoscience". But I drove myself forward in order to respect the thread but I just couldn't be expected to continue past "cooked up".

So I compromised and scrolled and came to rest on--



I could no longer see properly for the tears. So I gave up and went to Reply so I could pay my respects to your efforts to bring us this dramatic item from the shed at the bottom of the garden.

Do you want me to discuss other hoaxes ci.

Such as you being anything more than an eating and shitting machine. Past propagating.

Or that all the money doesn't belong to the Government.

Or that women don't have an Adam's Apple because Eve didn't swallow.

Or that it is you who switches on the lights which show your ornamental garden to best effect.

I could make a case that the NFL is a hoax. A Darwinian case.

It's a hoax that you lot know anything about science or evolution.

Your list of bull **** doesn't address the copy and paste you did of my post.

The utter abject nature of begging like that wande brought my sentimental side to the fore.



I wonder how Marcel would have described a scene where Swann was holding his mother's attention at the dinner table with sentences like that when he was yearning for her to read him to sleep with bedside stories from The Arabian Nights. The older Marcel remembering the feeling and trying to convey it to the readers. A plea for understanding but also a literary exercise. One doesn't need to have shared the feeling--my mother was the last thing I wanted when I went to bed--to be abled to share in the exercise.

It does in the sense of what's the big deal about hoaxes? Why are you so obsessed with this particular hoax as you claim the Bible to be. Not that you have read it. Is it because of those teeny bits of it that take exception to certain behaviour patterns which you have been involved in, are involved in or hope to be involved in and which are grey areas in the law?

I can't see it that you are obsessed with hoaxes in general, as my reply attempted to clarify for the viewers, so you must have another reason for picking on the hoax of the Bible. I must admit that some parts of it are a bit far fetched but so were some parts of Humphrey Bogart. And Mickey Spillaine.

I mean that your position is 100% subjective.

spendi, All our perceptions are subjective. Haven't you learned these simple truths yet? LOL

That some can determine that this planet is some 4.5 billion years old vs the bible's 7000 years old, isn't even subjective. They are facts easily confirmed from many fields of science. BTW, that includes math!

Are all our perceptions subjective or not. First you declare they are and then you say that this "some", who can do the wonders you claim for them which avoids them having to do anything useful, are not.

Make your mind up.

They are consistent in idea; it's just too spacial for you to comprehend. Some things in this world are known as facts; they consist of many things that are observed and perceived by most people in the same way. Most people see black as black, and blue as blue. Most people can see mountains and oceans in the same way as most on the planet sees them. They are factual in nature.

When you go to your local pub and order a beer, that's how everybody in the pub ended up there; they knew they can order their favorite suds there. However, where it becomes subjective is in what kind of beer they order. Comprende?

No. I feel sorry for anybody that does.

Marquis de Sade Juliette 11. Juliette is the original full-baked feral female besides whom Candy and Lolita are well brought up lower-middle-class girls.

De Sade places the words in the mouth of his statesman Saint-Fond who is, one hopes, not in the least like our pet anti-IDers who also fondly, if somewhat quaintly, believe--yes--believe--in the same doctrine.

Of course, it begs two serious questions. Do the masses wish to shake off the yoke that burdens them (ironic jest) and will the masses be better off if they do shake it off and become clones, what else, of our dear anti-IDers in that materialist manifestation which temporarily holds dominion in their minds at moments of high inspiration if not at any other time.

I noticed that President Obama ended his State of the Union speech with the words "God bless you all, and God bless America."

As to the speech itself I must admit to being astonished and mildly appalled.

As someone who ad nauseum quotes de Sade and believes it, why am I not surprised?

How dare you, fm, make yourself so idiotic, sufficient indeed to embarrass your colleagues, as to respond to a post demonstrating your own alignment with de Sade's belief in the separation of church and state and when you know I don't believe in such a silly idea and neither does your President. There is a major difference between talking about that disjunction and actually having it despite the fact that promoting the disjunction provides many opportunities, if sought out vigorously enough, to insult people with vituperative remarks, slurs, innuendos and ridicule in order to slake the need to be continually making reverse invidious comparisons with the self. Which is, of course, truly Sadean. Pleasure fron dishing out aggressive tounge lashings. Searching out religious meeting halls to give them a piece of your mind. And, lest we forget, inviting retaliation. Pain.

I quote de Sade now and again to show what anti-ID looks like when in operation rather than simply being abstractly discussed at a soiree with ladies present. Which is what the great genius himself was doing in my analysis. He came from a long and distinguished Catholic and aristocratic lineage. And his heart was broken at the sight of man's and nature's inhumanity to man. Does he not make his greatest villians men in high positions in church and state. Does he not rub anti-ID in your nose. Goodstyle. He's possibly the best read man in history.

Isn't Jokerman portrayed to give us the creeps. Like Jack Nicholson did. To discredit everything he stands for. Well???? You can't read properly. If you had read A Modest Proposal at the time it was published I imagine you would have thought Swift was actually recommending the Irish to eat their babies, rather than employing boiling aqua-regia irony, and writing an indignant letter to the editor.

It has been claimed that de Sade started the French revolution. Or put the match to the touchpaper more like. I believe in the Naked Lunch too. What's on anti-ID's fork. Not another temptation in the manner of the Faustian legends. And as dramatic as Eve's famous apple. Promising cradle to the grave attendance to our slightest whim. (see ads on telly). Your Life in their Hands. Didn't Woody Allen take the piss out of it too. Did Bilko's portrayal of the military use of your tax-dollars not give you pause for thought?

And I'm not even saying that we shouldn't succumb to it as you lot are in your half-baked fashion. It is very tempting I must admit and I do allow myself to partake of a few of the benefits and joys and I know that most IDers do too.

I'm just saying "hang on a minute, let's take this at a pace we can deal with like a fish would if it was bringing forth a wing from its fin which is a feat a lot of fishes haven't thought necessary to apply the besoins to. Whatever they are. And as the Church had to persuade Galileo to do.

Boy, you mention de Sade nd he flips out. Id think that spendi has the essential deSade attitude herein. Hes a master of the three Mys's

Slavering over the diseased raving of Sade is hardly becoming.

Hiding away from them is unbecoming. Particularly on a science thread.

You are obviously not up for a grown up discussion of evolution Ed just like all the others promoting the teaching of it as if it is a sanitised abstraction.

And they are not diseased ravings either as I was at pains to point out. They are merely a description of where anti-ID takes us by the logic of science. Hence we can choose. With no offerings from anti-IDers of what anti-ID comes to aside from a small collection of abstractions which mean nothing how can anybody choose. Anti-ID is a devil you don't know.

And if you were taking notice you would have known that the separation of church and state was the point at issue and presented as a revolutionary socialist doctrine which doesn't take the trouble to describe the masses freed from the yoke.

Indeed. But you don't know what the attitude is. You think you know from hearing a few dark whispers.

Why would de Sade attack God and the Church with reason, with ridicule, with imprecations, with blasphemy, with philosophy, with economics, with politics, with inconsistencies in the Bible and all with an intensity and comprehensiveness that your side can't get close to, nor would dare to, and put the whole lot into the mouths of the most villainous and depraved characters it is possible to imagine and in the justification of their pursuit of the pleasure principle which evolution has fitted us with. Isn't his message obvious to you?

spendi, You still haven't learned; we don't need to challenge religion with any "intensity." Humans are prone to one religion or another; that's as close to "human nature" as we can get. It's not necessary to challenge religion, because it's a losing battle; that's the reality. However, we can challenge the christian religion with impunity because it has absolutely no history or benefit inured to man kind. The christian religion is responsible for many of history's atrocities even though christians continue to tell us the core value of christianity is morals. Sort of like stabbing your spouse in the back, then repent and say you're sorry. Doesn't work in the short-term or long-term moral philosophy.

Spendi, I will overlook your boorishness for now.
You will take the utmost extreme examples, such as provided by a lunatic like Sade, and hammer away that this is where evolution leads. Opponents of evolution, trying to establish that destruction and depravity are the sole means and end of evolutionary thought are not in the ball park. You can't leave out the rest of the theory and get any traction for your argument.