Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I love the way that spendi suggests that I can have a post "posthumously edited out".
Not only are attributions often mis-assigned to me but his Reports of my death have been somewhat exaggerated.

The latest challenge to the teaching of evolution is the fact that evolution is a bunch of bullshit. Christians know that. Mathematicians know that. Anybody familiar with the laws of probability knows that and idiots with 180 IQs like Dick Dawkins even speak in terms of "climbing Mount Improbable" because they know they're talking about a theory which demands an infinite sequence of probabilistic miracles. The Bible on the other hand speaks of a number of miracles which is likely under 50.

Rather suspect he meant "ex post", not "posthumously"; he seems to have developed some conspiracy theory you might delete posts you made on A2K. For the record: there is no way, none, to delete posts from online sites - they have been stored in too many internet servers outside the site itself. The only poster ever alleging you were planning to send anyone to re-education camps is Spendius himself; I linked his 2 more recent such allegations but the search came up with more, e.g. http://able2know.org/topic/141106-27#post-3916132 , all invariably from him. Gambling debts are debts of honor, meaning they can't be legally enforced, but the only way I'm ever taking him off ignore again is if we receive his $16,000. Suggest you do the same.

Please cite one name of a person with both qualifications who agrees with your view on evolution. Just one. Thank you.

When Sony Music removed Bob Dylan's bootleg videos from You Tube the ones that had been linked on A2K also vanished.

Thus the bet can never be determined. I know fm used the expression "re-education camps" and the smokescreen erected here by someone who has nothing to contribute to the debate (can't even say whether she wants religion exterminating) is neither here nor there.

I hope HS keeps me on Ignore. Forever.

fm--Are you denying that the expression "re-education" camps or facilities or somesuch ever appeared in one of your posts as a method to treat religious people?

Note that gungas list is free of objective scientists whove no "axe" to sharpen and credo to defend.
Whenever gunga 'quote mines someone" who IS an objective worker, his argument that the minee was missquoted is
"Well, then he shouldnt have sid that" , as if the segmenting and rearrangement of the quote itself was an honorable thing to do.

Gungas belief system notwithstanding, evolutionary science is growing, adding on new areas of support(like EPI-genetics), and is certainly the core of modern biology. Gunga hates news like that. Hes stuck in the REformation

On with the topic: on the "Darwin Correspondence Project" did a Boolean search for "bank" and "time" (these being both on my mind after the ignominious weasel backed off his debt) and found a possible chapter heading for you, at: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-101

The phrase "re-education camps" may have passed in discussions as
"Why are you obsessing about re-education camps spendi?"
or
"Spendi, thats the tenth post in which you claim Ive supposedly proposed re-education camps"

You seem to be switching your claim from'Farmerman wants to send me and all other IDers to a re-education camp" to "Farmerman used all the letters that could spell out re-education camps in a post"

Wouldnt that be one qualification ? Isnt a statistician a mathematician ?

David Berlinski, a mathematician and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Granville Sewell, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso.

Is two more than one ? I am no good at this sort of thing.....

Cheques? cheques? , had he no carte los ATMs? The Darwin project was begun over 12 years ago to have all of Darwins writings and volumes of correspondence up and on the web by his 200th. THey didnt quite make it but today its a marvel of completeness.
I was watching a show re: the Library pf Congress's holdings and how they are digitizing and putting on the web, bazillions of one of a kind stuff, like Jeffersons own personal map of what Lewis and Clark could expect along the trail. SO Lewis nd Clark actually took this map, compiled by input from Spanish, French, and AMericans and they modified it on the road to the Columbia Bar. ITs been didgitized into segments with Jeffersons, as well as Lewis and Clark notations.

They have presidential diaries and all of Robert Goddars notes on rocketry which were hand copied by the Germans in 1934 and used as a foundation for Nazi Germany's Peenemunde project.

Just so we're clear on this: the people you list are on record as saying that evolution is NOT a very high probability event?

Are you mentally unstable?

They are IDers. They dont believe evolution occured. Is that a low probability event ?

The first use of the term was your's fm. End of story. I can't recall whether you "proposed" them or "endorsed" them. I allowed you were jesting.

But if I was a proper anti-IDer I would not only have no problem proposing them and endorsing them but I would see them as the only way to go for the remainder of heretics after media, atheist teachers, the NCSE and the natural propensity to carnality had done their work on hoi polloi.

What is your objection? You do want to exterminate Christianity don't you?

I'm familiar with the work of both - and that's the position of neither of them. Berlinski makes no claim about evolution being low-probability; he objects to Darwinism because it led to ethnic cleansings, exterminations, and eugenics-inspired sterilizations. Darwinism and evolution aren't the same thing. Sewell only says that the genesis of life is an extremely low-probability event - and if you go back a few pages you'll see me saying the exact same thing. The appearance of life per se really is very low-probability - but that's nothing to do with lifeforms evolving. He also makes the excellent point that there are sudden "breaks" in apparently smooth functions - of course there are, nobody claimed evolution wasn't subject to random and/or exogenous shocks. You may have misunderstood the issues involved. Read both for more details:
Berlinski: http://www.discovery.org/a/14921
Sewell: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html

Around here that's considered a rhetorical question.

You were asked this very simple question fm--



Your slippery and devious responses are un-necessary when a yes or no would suffice. Viewers can draw their own conclusions.

Saying that "Darwinism" lead to ethnic cleansings (a very, very late 20th century expression), exterminations and eugenics-inspired sterilizations is the equivalent of blaming your gym teacher because you kicked somone in the face and knocked all of their front teeth out. A fine example of that kind of thinking comes up with Nietzsche--he not only deplored German nationalism, he claimed not to be ethnically German. But after his collapse and descent into mental illness, his sister took his notes for what became The Will to Power (a title which he had rejected, on the evidence of his notes), and then she cozied up to the NSDAP. In his lifetime, while he still had his wits about him, Nietzsche condemned his sister for having married a rabid German nationalist and anti-semite, and disavowed any connection to her and her husband.

Yet Nietzsche is routinely "blamed" for NSDAP policies. I suspect that this is what this clown Berlinski is up to. Darwin certainly never wrote anywhere that evolutionary theory would justify what we call ethnic cleansing, nor exterminations nor eugenics. He was an observer of the natural world, not a political leader or ideologue. The IDiot crowd and the creationists positively foam at the mouth over Darwin.

It's obvious I was re-stating Berlinski's position; he was one of the 2 mathematicians cited by Ionus. I don't agree with his conclusion either.