Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

effemm knows too. Gee! What that guy knows is incredible. Teleologists of the world unite. They can prove anything they want.

It's like a magic word. They say it and hey-presto it's true.

They obviously cannot help it.

And we do know that wande is so upset at the idea of posting on the bottom of a page that he will go to the trouble of wasting a post to be seen on the top of the "next page."

He admitted it.

I wonder if he thinks that getting upset is so common in his circles that it is universal. I'm the coolest cat that every walked the picket fence sniffing the night air.

It might be an opportunity for teachers to illustrate how the scientific method works.

However, there is always the danger that if creationism is introduced as a subject for discussion, some students would disrupt science instruction with creationist propaganda.

spendi, Your only "cool" is how cold the beer happens to be.

Didnt say it would be easy but we shouldnt fail to teach the kids at a level of what we expect of them, not what we want to settle for.

WOuldnt it be grand to make some lemonade out of the law?

When you get down to it.... the latest challenge to the teaching of evolution is the internet and the fact that people are now free to learn that evolution is a bunch of bullshit.

You are probably right gunga. Weve been making up all this evidence in genetics, geology, paleontology, isotopic analysis, etc just to fool the masses. Youre too smart for all that. By the way, when was your Flood?

I dont expect you to answer but,
If evolution or species succession were false, we should find species of all kinds in all the rock layers, or at least we should find the mammals and birds at the same levels that we find trilobites and eurypterids. Or am I wrong?
CAn you handle that one?

The more fundamental question is "who is your god?" Only proof and evidence is needed; such as provided in science. Poofism does not apply.

They just did ci. in a Channel 4 programme about gigolos. It really was quite funny too. I know science isn't meant to be funny but it was in this case.

Obviously I can't guarantee the evidence. But Ch 4's reputation would be on the line if they faked it. It was very scientific IMO.

What's a poor little rich middle aged lady supposed to do when blokes have turned out to be so tiresome 24/7.

And if we were to get averagely scientific it would quickly dawn upon those of us who gritted their teeth and refrained from putting some of the evidence on Ignore that our whole way of life, everything we eat, where we sleep, what we do for a living etc etc is based upon a double-entry book-keeping system of leverage with a steam engine pulling it. Slowly up hills and faster down the other side.

Two mutations in the space of 200 years. Darwin's a ******* snail.

I once had some snail powder. Then I read Darwin. After that I wasn't going to eat produce that had had to get me to put snails on Ignore. I wanted stuff that could cope.

I had to give up though. The snails were too good. They had it coming.

That's a brief glimpse into how the scientific method works. I don't just talk about it as a pose. That's what two of the gigolos did. The third one said he was a "carer". When asked would he care if he wasn't being paid he laughed as much as to say--" you don't really want me to answer that do you?"

What a bloody pompous and meaningless statement that is ci. Did you enjoy getting off your chest? That's the main thing eh?

You haven't the faintest idea ci. what the scientific method is so why don't you knock off waving the phrase about as if it flags you up as a scientific person and thus superior to religious people.

You don't even have a candidate.

And Nobel Prize winners don't impress me all that much.

If you have a prize somebody has to win it. Not in Maths though. Modern maths is double-dutch to the judges as Spengler predicted.

Alf leaves a load of dough to atone for his discovery, the egotistical bastard. As if dynamite would have been long coming. He was atoning for the deaths I suppose. His after-the-event conscience clause.

What does anybody do? Particularly the bourgeoise. Have a do obviously. A big ceremony, troughing session, speeches, piss up, names in papers and on TV. Invitation only. No prize, no ceremony, no do.

On the interest on what is said to be $180 million in new money and which isn't a lot this year. Zero % I've heard. And surely it is unthinkable to dip into the capital. The trustees wouldn't like that.

"Well done my boy." For scrotal sac temperature gradients in cichlids which could lead to a cure for MMD. (Mad Mammas Disease).

It's like the X Factor but not as honest. You needn't be all that PC on that. They do "Buggins's Turn" I heard.

Im going to post over tht last batch of gibberish so that spendi, when he sobers up and comes to, cant change it as he realizes he was speaking out loud and was not just thinking the above.

Well- why don't you refute the argument. When I used "gibberish" I backed it up. You just use it.

We are all sick of reading lines like-



as if it then follows that what the guy says is the honest to God gospel truth and we all know he is a party member pushing the party boat out against a freely elected govenor supporting a vote by other elected people. And such lines help the writer fill up his quota of words without effort and line himself up with a person of such magnificence.

I have no wish to change my post and your suggestion that I have is you just making gibberish up as you go along.

Take a look at the Peace Prize winners.

It's like Best Dressed Man being chosen so that the rag trade gets some publicity and can have a tax allowable do. Pinter won the Nobel literature prize. Take a look at the list for that. And we know about the gold plated Oscars.

Then take a look at the crosses on the war graves. And Darwin's tomb.

I see that gunga has not responded to my request for a "falsification -fest". Im not surprised because his wordlview needs to be based upon a belief system that is untestable and without ANY evidence.

Your last remark about Spurious assumes the clown does at some time sober up. That is an unwarranted assumption, and one not supported by any evidence available to us.

In what way does me being as pissed as a fart, which I wasn't, have a bearing on the posts I write? Don't they stand on their own?

It's a bit of an easy trick to declare someone pissed as a response to what they said irrespective of what it was they did say. All that does is make you look stupid.

Will you explain? You have no evidence either way. It seems to be your only method of disputation. Unwarranted assumptions are a singularly striking feature of anti-IDer's posts.

There are very few members of our ruling elites who are scared shitless of taking a drink or two of alcoholic beverages.

It sure is a mighty claim that anybody who drinks is thereby rendered an unsuitable person to say anything significant. Are you Islamic Set?

Yeh, anyone who keeps us informed of the amount he drinks and further reminds us of its alcohol content, is busy making "deals" with himself.

"Im not an alcoholic, I only drink 3.5 (20 oz UK) pints of 3.8% alcoholic beverage".

At 20 oz of 3.8% he is downing a minimum alcohol equivalent of 4.25 shot glasses of booze. This accounts for his later beliefs that he is a gifted and witty writer.

Not everyone from England is a Dickens, some must be the fullers, the colliers and the verderers.

The authentic voice of the reformed alcoholic. It must have been a severe problem for you to exercise your wit on this matter continually.

If a boozer has nothing worth hearing you had better forget Darwin. He hunted with hounds too.

No problem, I always looked back and remembered sadly how I often sounded like you do now. Ya better look in a mirror drinky.