Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@Setanta,

Quote:

For example, did you know that the American civil war was not fought over slavery?

And that is about the depth you contributed on the actual post. Got a chip on your shoulder ?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

And, I pick up a few things I would otherwise not know about without your replies.

gees, Mister Ed, wait till they get their pants down..whats the hurry to please ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

For example, did you know that the American civil war was not fought over slavery? It was all a nefarious plot to take over North America. S'truth . . . just ask Anus.

I know, I was there when he was talking out his ass. (Thats about the time it occured to me which orifice he was using to talk from----hence his "pen name")

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Quote:
And, I pick up a few things I would otherwise not know about without your replies.
That's a good point, EB.

What a pack of creepy kiss-arses.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I know, I was there when he was talking out his ass. (Thats about the time it occured to me which orifice he was using to talk from----hence his "pen name")

That is the maximum you are capable of.....I applaud your drunken efforts.

Gomer the Turd must seek help.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

But dont let being c0mpletely wrong stop you from a tirade. it hasnt yet, you drunked old fool with fat non-typing fingers.

Ive said that I dont drink , , and Ive said it a few times> I suppose that you choose not to believe me. SO Ill accord you similarly. OH way, Ill drop the drunk and just collapse the phrase into

Quote:

you antisocial loser

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You said your students complained about you being unintelligable ? I wonder why...you think that is a compliment.

And once again you take a line out of context, mess it about, add a few words that I probably wont notice, and you come up ith a perfectly good lie and a totally bullshit projection.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ive said that I dont drink , , and Ive said it a few times

A blind man could type better than you if you are sober. Or is it too boring to read your own posts ? If thats it, than I sympathise entirely. As for believing you are a non-drinker, there are some here who have seen you drink.

Gomer the Turd must seek help.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

The laughs on you Gomer the Turd. NEO-ARCHEAN means NEW-OLD. Drunk already ?

Who was it that said that intelligence is being able to entertain 2 or more conflicting facts at the same time and still function. By you dwelling on archean (as an adjective) , youve missed the entire basis of the point we were discussing (actually it was an answer to a question that Ros raised-it had to do with geology, not grammar)
ARCHEAN (noun) is the lowest eon of the Standard Global Chronological Scale ( the geologic time scale). It lise below the Proterozoic ( Ill betcha that you can even look this one up and find out that there is an inherently funny period name within the Proterozoic Era). The lower age of the ARchean has not been defined, but it is somewhere at or about 4.5+By. Its upper limit is at 2.5 By . You can obsess about what names theyve chosen, but, if you use a computer, you are probably familiar with how many terms in standard English have been coopted by computer-speak.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

And if a student parrots that stuff back in an exam he gets a certificate and becomes an expert. Which doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. But he takes the expertise onwards to other students and everybody ends up not knowing what they are talking about.

When students are told that they shouldn't spey the love of their life or ask them to poison themselves or have mechanical gizmos inserted in their bodies or rip any little mites from evolution's cradle just so they can bang away unhindered they do know what is being talked about and will benefit from it if they follow the instructions carefully. And get blasted if they don't.

You guys are unpaid agents of various strange industries, all contra evolution theory, as a result of unquestioningly soaking up the propaganda of the paid agents.

Misogynists to a man (and woman). Double-dyed fundamentalists of the worst sort. Proof of Prof. Greer's dictum.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

And if a student parrots that stuff back in an exam he gets a certificate and becomes an expert. Which doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

Time for shpendi to try to do some damage control. You must remeber that I merely was explaining a term that grew out of a discussion of "Iceball earth" (a topic that you disagreed with yet have failed to supply any evidence to support your "belief", other than some fluffy marshmallow.

.Sounds more like youve had some teachers who spent more time with memorizing techno babble than actual problem solving. I cannot help it that you and ANUS were not stellar performers . The fact that ANUS wishes to remind us that hes an ignoramus is also none of my concern. You must admit, that he never fails to amuse. With WHAT, will he next come up.Maybe he will debate the Beard/Einstein Conflation.

I suppose its important to you to have one of your supporters be shown in a better light. Why not PM him and explain that many words in WENglish can have several "assigned" meanings

2 Replies

@farmerman,

No damage control mate. Showing you can't answer the post is hardly that. I never said that there was no Iceball Earth. I only said it wasn't proved. And I gave two reasons to question it neither of which you bothered to explain away presumably because you can't. And neither were "fluffy marshmallow". That term is merely the literary equivalent of pulling your tongue out and going "mmrruuhhhh!!"

Quote:

.Sounds more like youve had some teachers who spent more time with memorizing techno babble than actual problem solving. I cannot help it that you and ANUS were not stellar performers . The fact that ANUS wishes to remind us that hes an ignoramus is also none of my concern. You must admit, that he never fails to amuse. With WHAT, will he next come up.Maybe he will debate the Beard/Einstein Conflation.

That is pure gobshite. From first to last.

Why would I PM Ionus? He's an anti-IDer in case you failed to notice. He's no supporter of mine. I have no interest in what light he is shown in. My guess is that he is pissed of with you and your lickspittles and lackeys giving anti-ID and science a bad name. I can do the anti-ID case miles better than any of your lot ever could. It's the DI I ought to PM to tell them to get off the case. They have no idea.

There's no science on your side. A few brilliantine words which have no meaning to kids in schools might kid your clowning posturers into thinking otherwise but that's no concern of mine. With supporters like you've got I would think of having a brain re-vamp.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

There's no science on your side.

You do say that oftn. I assume its more from a POV that has no clue what is or is not science. Because you have no idea of what you speak SO carry on, nurse.

Quote:

No damage control mate. Showing you can't answer the post is hardly that. I never said that there was no Iceball Earth. I only said it wasn't proved. And I gave two reasons to question it neither of which you bothered to explain away presumably because you can't.

.

Unless you were still recovering, I stated the series of evidence clusters about the Cryogenian period , and to a working geologist, they are quite compelling. I really dont consider you an authority on anything beyond malt beverages so either state your objections to the stated evidence or shut your useless face.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You do say that oftn. I assume its more from a POV that has no clue what is or is not science.

I feel the need to say it often so that A2Kers don't end up with the idea that what you go on about has anything to do with science. Science is disinterested curiosity and you're interested. And you're not very curious either.

I had no objection to the Iceball idea. I said I didn't give a damn if it was candy floss. I gave known objections. That the tectonic shifts could have had that land at the poles and there is no explanation of why it warmed up when an ice covered earth would reflect sunlight and stay ice. I'm not saying either is valid. The onus is on iceball theories to disprove them.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

That the tectonic shifts could have had that land at the poles and there is no explanation of why it warmed up when an ice covered earth would reflect sunlight and stay ice.

There are lots of possible explanations. That you are not curious enough to look for some says something about your view of science.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Another bloody scientist has just been on the news informing us of the project to "find other life forms" in the universe. If ever Veblen's dictum that utility equals odium and waste equals status needed demonstrating there it was. The project is actually to scam our dough while looking serious and concerned. There £15 billion gone on trying to find out what happened "just after the Big Bang".

Show me somebody whose interested in what happened "just after the Big Bang" and I'll say a prayer for him. If they do find out it will then be what happened just before what happened after the Big Bang but after it. Nothing about before the Big Bang itself mind you when all the matter in the universe ,and not just what we can detect, was non-existent or squashed into an object of infinitessimal size with infinite density.

We are having the winds woven into nets to catch the cash which falls out of our pockets when we are held upside down by the ankles and shaken by our work-shy betters. And all done with the energy we get out of the earth and the sky with our sweated labour and feed into their sacred premises. And we are all being squeezed until the pips squeak. Aren't we. It says so on the news.

Beer would be free if it was subsidised with £15 bloody billion. And the pubs would be full of good time girls instead of them vanishing as they are now, thought of as a dynamic process going from the early years of the new millenium up to this moment in time, and the few remaining are into trousers and no cleavage and look like they are sucking lemons. There's a couple of elderly ones who keep the flag flying but we try not to think about them too much. We are quite disinterested.

That's scientific fm. And the curiosity is worn out with it. Winter has set in.

Right-- what's next?? Sofa adverts. There's definitely been a shift of emphasis in sofa adverts. You probably haven't noticed with you not being a scientist. Observing what the books claim to have observed of those long gone times rather than observing what's going on now. I hope what's going on now is not on Ignore. Don't Look Back Bob says. He's a scientist.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I gave known objections. That the tectonic shifts could have had that land at the poles and there is no explanation of why it warmed up when an ice covered earth would reflect sunlight and stay ice. I'm not saying either is valid. The onus is on iceball theories to disprove them.

WHile several geologists have posted doubt about "Snowball Earth" being an actual snowball and instead maybe it was a "Slush Ball Earth", everyone seems to agree that the strong evidence confirms the existence of a worldwide glaciation event , Called the Sturtian Glaciation.

Frank McDonald's work in Canada has shown that there was a layer of vulcanic ash sammiched in between layers of Glacial moraine deposits. He dated these ashes and found (Through U/Pb210 spec ) that the Canadian ash layer was 715 MY old and this layer lies well below the worldwide . Treptichnus layer that defines the base of the Cambrian .
NOW, these deposits were at a time that defines the Cryougenian and, it must be stated, at this time , what would ultimately become Canada, was along the equator. SO weve got evidence of glacial deposits during the "Snowball Earth" time as defined originally by Harland in 1960, and these glacial deposits are correctly dated by U/Pb210, and it was during a time when Canada was at the equator.

What melted the ice was a combination of changing seaways that allowed currents to absorb and distribute heat AND, added to a fact that worldwide vulcanism was adding heat and gases to warm the planet gradually (over 28 million years)

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

There are lots of possible explanations. That you are not curious enough to look for some says something about your view of science.

Well--I gave two. What are the others? I'm curious about them alright if there are any and your not just making it up. I only have so much time and I'm curious about more important things than the ice-ball earth. (A money scam, but minus the holydays, the festivities, the singing and dancing, the boozing, the incense, the organ, the getting dressed up, the deals and the lovely unmatched, blossoming virgins eager to strike a good deal on their own account, leaving their mothers out of it.)

You're either nuts or you think we are. I'm curious about these explanations now the matter has come up on here. I gave two, as I said. I'm not curious about ice-ball earth but about the use of the idea on this thread and presumably in other places. I'm curious about the tests the thesis of ice-ball earth has been subjected to. That's why I mentioned two. I'm curious why on a site where posters are supposed to be Abling other users 2 Know you tell us of other possible explanations but are noticeably reticent about abling us to know what they are.

What are they? I'm busy with other things. Help me out. Able me 2 Know. My two are sufficient for me to have doubts about the reality of ice-ball earth apart from it being a set of ideas found in books which it is a complete waste of time to read. Unless you want a diploma off fm of course. Or his heir.

Quote:

That you are not curious enough to look for some says something about your view of science.

That says a lot more about you than it does about me. I've enough curiosity to kill a thousand cats. And then some. There's an infinite number of things to be curious about and I've no reason to get too excited about the "lots of possible explanations" when the two I have given are, up to now, sufficient for the purpose in hand. What use are a hundred possible explanation when the two I gave have not been challenged yet?

You shouldn't associate anti-ID with posts as ridiculous as your's. It's real bad PR for the movement. It really is. It makes neutrals wonder, and there's no point is addressing yourself to the faithful on either side, how many anti-IDers are as dim and as arrogant as you. You do need to be both to have underestimated your international audience to such an extent.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Here is a proper scientific sensibility on display.

Quote:

; and as nothing is little to him that feels it with great sensibility, a mind able to see common incidents in their real state is disposed by very common incidents to very serious contemplation.

Samuel Johnson.

Darwin's very method.

It might be that "ice-ball" earth is contemplated as a very uncommon incident precisely to avoid contemplating any very common ones which might cause one to jump out of one's skin in surprise or even fear.

A form of escapism.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Are you a wrote learner ? I was pointing out that science has some rather stupid and meaningless names and you went into impress everyone mode. If science is so sloppy in its naming, why would we let it be responsible for our souls ? You do think we have a soul, dont you ?

Gomer the Turd must seek help.

2 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know