Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Your brain is so rotten, it doesn't know truth from fiction. You create ideas in your arse, and think you've discovered something new. All that comes out of you is ****.

You dont let mere ignorance get in the way of an insane sounding thread.

I think that everything you know about this subject youve gotten from cable tv

Apology accepted

Most index fossils

I may not be the best geologist in the world

what do you bring besides a terrible temper

Why should I woorry

you are getting stumped by simple information

Youre horse pucks under my boots sailor.

Ive got real quals in the science

I always listen to history information from Set, and financial insites by CI, and general sound information and interrogatories by Ros, and wandel. I read good writing and poecy by Joe Nation, Edgar and Enymion. I take gardening advice from Osso,Shewolf and dapad.

HOWEVER dude, I for the life of me, cannot figure out what you are even half accomplished at.

in every case, Ive stated that the underlying evidence and predictions SUPPORT the evolutionary model.

All I can say is SEEE? thats what I said.

I think Ive been pwrfectly clear about that position from day 1.

try to enroll in some anger management

LAST POINT ANUS, If you have any problem with anything I say about these items of science, please debate me on the very issue and try not to just engage in pwersonal attacks, cause I juast come back at you and your misunderstandings dont get resolved in your mind.
The fact that you still think that you were correct in the Dinosaur DNA comment (For our readers who may not know, Anus stated that we can tell the evolutionary relationship between chickens and T rex by eachs DNA). I think that evryone knows by now that weve never ever found any DNA of any dinosaur anywhere on the planet. Still, Anus feels that he was correct in that assertion, I tried to correct it by asking a question. Anus then took it really hard that anyone would dare to question his authority and then WE were off to the races, and Ive been a prime target of his ignorance (Course I dont know whether he insults CI, Setanta, wandel or me the most) I feel Im in pretty good (READ stable intelligent) company.

So a mechanism used to align rocks to the same date ( with what tolerance?) is used by you to prove evolution does not have gaps. I have seen two short planks strapped together that werent as thick as you.

I would be deeply shocked if you could figure out what a bus time table was for.....

Where there is a controversy concerning a passage in a classic author, or concerning a question in antiquities, or any other subject in which human happiness is not deeply interested, a man may treat his antagonist with politeness and even respect. But where the controversy is concerning the truth of religion, it is of such vast importance to him who maintains it, to obtain the victory, that the person of an opponent ought not to be spared. If a man firmly believes that religion is an invaluable treasure, he will consider a writer who endeavours to deprive mankind of it as a robber; he will look upon him as odious, though the infidel might think himself in the right.

Who the **** wants to date you?

You're the epitome of ignorance and bull ****.

You don't even understand who you argue against

because people like farmerman makes a living with his special skills

All you do is spit bull ****.

First Amendment flap: Was Christine O'Donnell touting 'tea party' view?
(By Peter Grier, Christian Science Monitor, October 20, 2010)

Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Tuesday during a debate with opponent Chris Coons seemed to question whether the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. So what’s her view of the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is the section of the nation’s founding document that deals with church-state issues, after all. The First Amendment reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

To Ms. O’Donnell, it may be the second clause there – “prohibiting the free exercise” – that’s most important. That means the government can’t interfere with religion, she emphasized in remarks to National Review Online after Tuesday’s debate at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del.

To O’Donnell, that means, for instance, that public schools should have the right to teach intelligent design as a theory of how life on earth came to be, along with the theory of evolution.

The First Amendment “gives them the freedom to teach that if that’s what they want,” O’Donnell told National Review Online’s “Battle ‘10” blog.

Mr. Coons, along with many constitutional law scholars, likely would see that example the other way around. They’d say that intelligent design, which holds that the universe is best explained as the creation of some form of larger being, is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. Allowing it to be taught in public schools would be to favor one particular religion over another – something prohibited by the “respecting an establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment.

Confused? Let’s start from the top.

During Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell and Coons were arguing over the teaching-of-Creationism thing when Coons said that one of the “indispensable principles” of the Founding Fathers was “separation of church of state.”

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” said O’Donnell in reply, drawing gasps from a crowd composed largely of law students and professors.

A few minutes later, Coons returned to the subject, saying the First Amendment establishes the separation between church and state.

“The First Amendment does?” said O’Donnell. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

After the debate, O’Donnell did not respond to reporters asking her to clarify her remarks. Her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that she was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state. “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution,” Mr. Moran said.

O’Donnell is not the only conservative Republican Senate candidate with "tea party" support who has raised the issue of what the First Amendment means. In Nevada, Sharron Angle has taken a point of view similar to that of her Delaware compatriot.

In an interview earlier this year, Ms. Angle said that Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father credited with originating the phrase “separation of church and state,” has been misunderstood on this matter.

“Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up between the church and the state precisely to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion,” said Angle to Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston. “That’s what they meant by that. They didn’t mean we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum.”

“Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up between the church and the state precisely to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion,” said Angle to Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston. “That’s what they meant by that. They didn’t mean we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum.”

Actually, Im still trying to figure out what dog you have in this discussion because you seem to support a termination of the concept of a "separation of church and state"

because you seem to support a termination of the concept of a "separation of church and state"

be impermeable to many aspects of our simple reason.

the only way we can grow as a civilization is through the assistance of the high priests"

...what the USA gets we get with a few years delay. Our lefties have a lot more power than your's do.
..........................
..we did support your military excursions with our blood and in the teeth of fierce opposition despite you not supporting our's in '56.
..........................
Simple reasoning is for those who can read the print out on a rock sample in an age analyzer and stick a label on it with a fancy name and deduce that Christianity is all bullshit.
..........................
You're scared of telling us what we get when Christianity is abolished.
..........................

... And they hold all the aces. They are dangling the temptations of the flesh before our eyes. ....

Spendius - if you won't consult a medic about your religious hallucinations on a science thread, won't you at least speak to a priest? I don't think we have any exorcists available online. Take a copy of this page and let some trusted professional read it. He'll probably be able to correct your grammar as well.

Reaction-diffusion patterns (which can be created in a laboratory using standard reagents) are simple and deterministic. ....the patterns produced vary, according to things like how rapidly the chemicals diffuse. That could be selected. ..... So researchers at the University of Bristol, led by William Allen, have been deconstructing these patterns, trying to match the elements to cats’ habits and habitats, and thus show whether the patterns are evolving. They published their results this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.