Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

farmerman answered Anus question with :

To which ANUS responded with:

Gosh, I cant pull anything over on you ANUS.

You guys could take this routine on the road, like Abbot and Costello.

"whos asking the question here?"

" No WHAT, is asking the question, who is answering it, and why not, who deserves it more?".

I voted it down. I despise humor.

Well wande--I didn't find it funny. Will you explain the joke for me then I can have a good laugh. Laughing is healthy.

Was Mr Sagan easily annoyed?

I've read Wiki's biog. of the guy and he looks to have been either mad or skilled at the alchemy of turning words into money on the basis of the gullibility of the public.

A
R
T

Thats correct Gomer the Turd, and it is about time you stopped trying. I see you as the internet fraud you are, the frightened bully of religious people, the self proclaimed unqualified scientist, the sneering wretch who attacks religion because he thinks it will prove he is intelligent, the bully who enjoys failing students, the drunk who forgets what he posted, (damn it is a long list)....to be continued when space permits....

And what is your answer to religious fundamentalism ? Have them believe in science. It did all of the above for you, and more !

I dont suppose it occured to your mightiness that the two areas are totally different...science and religion I mean, as I know you have trouble keeping up...one is a detailed solution to the environment and the other is the recognition that you cant pull the legs off of something and tell them to walk. I will let you guess which one is which.

You didnt read Shelley did you ? Yet you are a clear example of what science in the hands of the unintelligent is capable of...immorality with a license.

Are you on drugs? For that was your most unintelligible and rambling pile of goose droppings ever.

You are one sorry loser fella. You are a perfect example of my disdain of many religious people. When you stop being such a stupid sanctimonious shithead, maybe someone (other than lonley ol spendi) will take you seriously

You may now insert your next inchoate attempt at communication.

g-night ANUS.

And you have the stupidity to post the following.....
Was that one bottle or two ? No wonder you think Grant is a hero.

In levels that you wouldnt understand dimwit.

Again we have you loudly declaring you are leaving the thread (Past bedy-time) and yet here you are....

So you think a man is worth emulating...what about Jesus ? How much of him is worth copying....scientifically speaking of course....does he beat Grant or only if he drinks alcohol ?

. All I said as g-night. I didnt think you would read anything into my valediction. You do have a way of flitting about a response.

Hint: "Just get to your point and shut up and sit down" (It reads now like you are some Dementia patient whos' looking under the bed for monsters).

Why am I being required to answer your dumaas point about Jesus? I guess I missed your connection here. Are you trying to convince me that Jesus is who I should emulate?
He used to go around smoting fig trees when they pissed him off. He too said some silly things but I guess he was an ok dude, overall.

But I hate sandals, especially in the field. Isay Gimme my Timberlines instead.

Thats it fer now, g-day.

What's your paranoia about being lonely fm. Do you think asserting that I'm lonely relieves your fear of loneliness by deluding you that you are not on the principle of the reverse invidious comparison to which you owe so much.

Loneliness is the settled condition of the Faustian ego adrift in endless space. "We are all alone in this world"--Marcel Proust. "Oh my God--am I here all alone?"--Bob Dylan. "I want to be alone"--Greta Garbo. "Getting away from it all" is an ideal isn't it. Try standing at the crease with a fast bowler bearing down on you with 70,000 Pakistan cricket fanatics roaring a crescendo under floodlights with insects flying past.

Too much Mom I'm afraid old chap.

And these assertions--oh dear. I suppose I ought to put you in the picture. Six years is long enough for me to encourage you to make a complete tit of yourself.

You see, your worship, when you make an assertion, any one of the cocktail quoted here will do as an example, you actually are making two assertions. There's the assertion given, Io's unintelligibility say, and the unwritten or unspoken one which declares the one expressed to be true.

This second assertion also has a hidden assertion. That saying the first assertion is true is true. And so on and so on.

You have an infinite regress and that is an absurdity and as you can't stop yourself indulging in a seemingly permanent series of such things you are yourself absurd. Scientifically.

If you make the original assertion without simultaeneously declaring it to be true you are self-evidently talking nonsense and thus you are an idiot. Scientifically.

How on earth did you arrive at your station in life without finding out these simple things?

BTW--Io's "immorality with a licence" is piercingly intelligible. It has been my position all along. I can't imagine any other motive for a militant atheist. If one doesn't believe in any transcendent power one has no reason to ever think about such a thing just as with the infinite number of other things one doesn't believe in. Militancy is then ridiculous. Even impossible.

The problem with immorality with a licence is that some people have more nerve than you lot of anti-IDers and need little encouragement to take the idea to the uttermost degradation of indulgence. And why not? Aldous Huxley explored the periphery.

The question I want you to answer most is what will the world be like if your sneering derision of religion is taken as fact and all those people (billions) abandon religion for science. Specifically, how does science prove it is not ok to rape and murder to promote your genetic survival ? How does science give someone a warm glow that makes them feel they have done the right thing in difficult circumstances ?

If you want to be the poster child for science, you should be able to answer.

As an aside, you seemed to have missed the point of pulling the legs off and commanding them to walk. Science does that all the time. Only one cause and effect at a time completely ignores the other results that complexity introduces. It is a good mechanism for understanding the environment, for promoting engineering, but it has considerable limitations for complex mechanisms with complex results.

One more question....if evolution is simple and thus applicable to the one step at a time scientific method, what will evolution produce in the future ? Caution: this may be above your pay grade.

He won't answer that Io. He doesn't do consequences. He's above all that ****.

Science isn't needed or intended to replace religion. Humanity already possesses the characteristics that religion pretends to provide. Compassion and empathy are built into us and are all we need to build ethics and morality. Science is a tool for understanding nature, nothing else is required of it.

You got that exactly right.

You still have your head frimly up your cloaca , sir. I have not been derisive about religions of the world. I am an agnostic true, but my beliefs v my craft are two separate worlds. In fact, Ive been quite critical about several of the public figures in evolution like Rochard Dawkins , Seth Lloyd,or Jerry Coyne, JUST BECAUSE of their derision of religion. (I really think youre grabbing straws again ANUS). As for answering your (weirdly worded) question. You do sound like Jerry Fallwell with the "It is Ok to rape if you follow science as a moral pathway" Evolutionary studies of the development of religions and morals have pretty much found that the initial source of "wonder" was practiced by members of familial groups when they came in touch with events that overwhelmed them. LAter, tribal practices (such as cooperation) were constructed into morality codes that seemed to preceed religious practices from times before the Wurm .

I have no fuckin idea what your trying to get at here ANUS. If youre intimating that evolution is multifaceted and multifunctional, I dont think youll find anyone to disagree , SInce, however, most evolution appears to be adaptive, we cant really predict what the new environments will be so therefore newly adapted species that present themselves may be complete mysteries. SCience is a tool, its not magic.

Lets take sabre-toothness, sabre toothness has appeared (by convergent evolution) in several species of canid, felid and marsupial mammals. In each case , the species developed several parallel morphological features such as
1sabre teeth

2 elongated flattened skulls

3extreme muculature around the shoulder girdles

4elongated extreme muscled rear legs

These were features that did not occur singly, they sort of went together as a fossil pqackage, what genes controlled these, WE WONT KNOW maybe never. But we can do the work from a present day felid and look at the HOX gene complement. The important thing in this example was , what niche were the many sabre toothed animals adapting to?
We can play games at what the future species will look like and these may have good reasons and logic , but every niche can throw a monkey wrench into the mix and all nature will respond differently.

Look up Terataspis grandiand tell me what this criter was adapting to in the late Devonian. Creepy little **** wasnt he?

It is not an answer to Io's question what Jerry Fallwell sounds like. The question stands on its own. And it's an obvious one.

It's just the same as responding to a question you can't answer, or don't want to, by declaring the questioner drunk. It is proof of the absence of a scientific sensibility and that any semblance of a scientific sensibility on easier occasions is faked. A scientific sensibility is a characteristic like skin colour. It isn't turned on and off.

I would assume that rape is beneficial to a species from a biological point of view. The idea that it is "OK" is as daft as it not being. To approve of it is a moral position. It occurs naturally surely. "Romance is rape" the feminists say. Cecil Rhodes, when asked what to do about the natives, said "**** 'em white" and his name is attached to your most prestigious university honour. Which Bobby Jindal won through to. As did Bill Clinton.



That's disingenous fm. You have been derisive about Christianity. And on many occasions. You have looked under every stone to find one with a bad priest under it and when you have found one in your newspaper you have made an great fuss about it. That's not only derisive but unscientific.



That's a ridiculous statement and not one your posts provide credibility for.

I don't think you were critical of Dawkins at the beginning of this thread. You might recently have been critical of him but I would say it is because you have felt him becoming marginalised as his position comes under closer scrutiny and you are leaning with the wind.

The position of anti-IDers has relied all along on not being under close scrutiny. You lot have done some grabbing at straws. The bad priests and the Freshwater incident spring to mind. At the same time you refuse to consider potential incidents with equally extreme views in operation when a kerygmatic atheist gets his or her hands on a biology class.



Same old trick. Why was the question "weirdly worded"? The question was straightforward enough.



But isn't a Higher Power needed to reduce any deviance. The whole point of religion is to avoid the terror tactics needed to prevent deviance and opposition from laws deriving from humans who are untrustworthy. And don't start banging on about the Inquisition because that's dead and gone and wasn't dealing with modern, industrial societies. Atheist societies use terror far more than Christian societies do.

The crux of the matter is that the scientific method is applicable to inanimate matter as in physics and chemistry but when it comes to psychology it is involved, so far, in speculations.

E.A.Bennet M.C., M.D., SC.D., D.P.M. wrote-



(From a letter to C.G. Jung.)

Religion is an entirely psychological matter. As is lingerie and the whole industry, which is very large, which deals with the alchemy whereby mutton is transformed into lamb with the evidence standing out as bold as a chapel hat-peg.

The application of scientific method to psychological matters is basically cheating. It is similar to measuring volume by weighing.

If the scientific method ever does become applicable to psychology, and there are plenty of people attempting the feat, it seems to me we will all become identical autonoma and ladies will become objects to which only vectors of deterministic forces will apply.

Shades of the "controversial issues" the Texas senator alluded to in one of wande's quotes.

Trilobites are cool. I wish they were still around.


At least we still have Horseshoe Crabs (and little Homo Sapiens).