Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Thank you farmerman, evolution is new to me so I know very little about it! I did my research on it and found the same thing! You normally go into detail with wisdom about your understanding of subjects and I was hoping that you would do the same with this!
I was hoping that you would elaborate on it without me having to do the research myself but oh well I came to the same answer as you so I do guess that I did learn something.

Are you very young?

No. I do not believe in a personal God. That is, if I worship God I will be saved. I believe we are on our own. God, if they exist, is more like a driving force, what scientists would attribute to a dimension.

rl is obviously very young. He thinks fm goes "into detail with wisdom" about his understanding of subjects.

You have to be very young to arrive at that conclusion. fm actually takes steps to avoid wisdom. He promotes a policy without any serious and unasserted reference to what it will result in. He indulges himself by imagining that the universal acceptance of atheism will not effect the way things are now. He spends all his time on this thread preaching to the converted with the same tune on a repetitive loop. He seems unable to see that the unconverted are his proper subject.

rl should read the literary productions of some real atheists such as Bernard Shaw, Philip Larkin and the Marquis de Sade rather that those of half-baked atheists who live a pious Christian lifestyle. And take his time before jumping to any sudden conclusions.

fm treats the subject of teaching evolution as an abstract, inanimate object under blinkered, specialised scrutiny and without reference to the logistics of it in the actual world.

Would a fanatical follower of Al Gore teaching biology be able to resist influencing the class to accept the fanaticism. Possibly by a few sneers or other extra-curricula tricks which could not be used as evidence in a court. How many fanatical atheists would be recruited to teach biology if the exclusive teaching of evolution was institutionalised in all the schools and how big would be the pool from which they were chosen?

We should never forget that the patron saint of scepticism is Mephistopheles and it's martyrs are de Sade and La Mettrie. Dawkins can hardly be considered a martyr when he is making a fortune, living in luxury and is on his third wife.

But fm is no sceptic. He actually thinks that the media conglomerates wande quotes in support of his position are interested in science and not profit. A gatepost would produce a hollow, mordant laugh at such a ridiculous proposition. Media is the church of Mammon.

A dimension? No idea how that translates into chemical periodic tables but mathematically there seem to be only about 103 basic forms - said to correspond to actual atoms in their progression of complexity. More higher-dimension forms (heavier, more complex) may be found, same as with atoms:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20134-atoms-ripple-in-the-periodic-table-of-shapes.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

In what way is Nobelium more "complex" than Protium? Stuff is just stuff. Students are not stuff.

Is a wall more complex than a brick? More complicated maybe.

Assuming you're using protium as a synonym for hydrogen 1: nobelium is more complex because its half-life is less than 3 hours. Hydrogen 1 is stable.

If its half life is 3 hours and it's 14 billion years since the Big Bang and there's 365 x 8 periods of 3 hours in a year, forgetting leap years and its complexities for the sake of argument, then the element should now be a 1 over 14,ooo,ooo,ooo x 365 x 8 th of its orginal self.

How come we can still find some in order to know about it.

And the amount we know about must have started out 14,000,000,000 x 365 x 8 times bigger.

If the Himalayas had a half life like that how long would it take for it to be able to fit into a thimble which is a device ladies used to use, in the days of fiscal rectitude, on the end of the forefinger to prevent the irritation of the blunt end of a darning needle when mending their husband's socks.

And what about the stuff that has a half-life of milli-micro seconds?

This has nothing to do with teaching kids how to be respectable and useful members of a dynamic and thrusting industrial and military complex. Most of them would only think of half-lives when the get to 40.

In your case - since you've admitted being innocent of the difference between hydrogen and nobelium - that would mean 40 minutes, not 40 years. Intense radiation works wonders, whether alpha- beta- or other particle decay. That's why children must be taught science and not the nonsense you're peddling

I would guffaw if you said that in the pub HS.

Your humour - as it were - belongs in the pub.

It's the last place remaining free from censorship in a social setting and even then it is only in that corner of the bar where me and my mates gather. I bet you daren't make jokes about predatory females wringing the life out of men in the service of evolutionary progress.

Making jokes about the Bible is just a method of getting that matter on Ignore.

spendi, FYI, I don't worry about being put on ignore. In many cases, I wish they would.

Plainoldme, I have found what you have shared with me to be very intellectual in my opinion.{Class Dismissed} You have asked if I am very young in another thread. which I will copy and paste too!

I think that I am very young to be a grandfather at the age of 45 to a grandson 3 years old and one on the way!

I have been married sense the age of 18 to a woman that tries to be the best that she can, though she does not share the same interest as you nor I but she does share all that she can! Can anyone expect any more than that and still be ethical?

I do think that for the most part that it does take women to change the world but please teach your descendants not to be absolutist in their thinking as this is where we get the division from among our people.
We are all in this struggle forward together!

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Can't say I fancy one of those.

You are tireless wande. I'll give you that.

I'm not sure I would go up against a unanimous vote in the Senate and a 94-3 one in the House unless I was only trying to get myself noticed by those who respond to the key words as often and as habitually as Pavlov trained his dogs to with doggie-type stimuli.

The real question is how those that do respond that way got that way. I'm betting it has something to do with sex. Or possibly eugenics. The rest of Christian social teaching is in agreement with the law.

After all, evolution is a very boring subject. It can't be anything to do with science. Show your lot a glimpse of real science and they hide away.

I can not believe they are stupid enough to brag about it. Reminiscent of the 1930's and someone proudly boasting how they kicked a Jew on the ground. Intolerance is as intolerance does.

"I am intolerant. If anyone has the nerve to disagree with me, I shall first call them a troll (whatever that means) then I shall put them on ignore !" says the internet nazi (cheers and applause from people who have no morals but love a good run with the pack).

" ignore" serves a valuable purpose when trying to keep a subject on track.


from wandel's post
The Butler act was also a unanimous law. Took aver 30 years to dump it. As the population of Louisiana ratchets up a few 10 IQ points, maybe they will see the difference twixt science and a worldview based on a minority view of Christinity.

Still snake handlers in La .

Nothing there "on track". Just a load of bluster and bombast with no relation to anything other than the noggin that thought it up.

The assumption that dumping the Butler act is a good thing renders all the argument circular and ignores that it might be reinstated at some point if only to prevent ladies becoming reproductive mechanisms under scientific control.