Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Political speech is protected - the court reached the right decision. Justice Alito's dissent is wrong on the law (1st Amendment of the US Constitution) and on the facts of the case: the picketers scrupulously observe conditions of the police permits to demonstrate granted to them in each instance, including distance from the church, the cemetery, the direct route between the 2, and so on. They can neither be seen nor heard by participants in the funeral processions.

But Judge Alito is senior to Judge Jones and everybody took his lone voice as the Gospel truth so help me God and hope to die.

Obviously if political speech is protected then one can understand the decision. But suppose political speech should not be protected when there is good reason to think it might lead to a breach of the peace or the infringement of certain rights of some importance such as to bury one's loved one with dignity.

Once you say political speech is protected the rest is tautological. Is the USSC not interested in good order and dignity?

The basic assumption is that the Constitution is still valid despite it being written for a world that bears only the crudest resemblence to the world now.



They will make sure they are seen and heard by at least some of the participants. Media will see to that.

I didn't know permits were needed in the US to demonstrate. Bumper stickers are demonstrations if we are going to get as pedantic as the 8 idiots.

Supreme courts are to make law not to be slaves to it.

Not in the US and not in the UK either - the legislature is supposed to write the laws, not the judges. This is unrelated (sorry Wandel) to topic here, but what does British law say about speeches such as made by John Galliano, fired as chief designer for Christian Dior for allegedly antisemitic comments?

Under French law if found guilty he's facing 6 months in prison plus a substantial fine. Under US law he can't be charged. Isn't he a British subject?

Ah, who was getting teleological? I was merely pointing out that chronology doesn't equate to cause. If it did, then Darwin would be chronologically more likely than Christianity because while Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't take 1800 years either.

I don't know what he said. I only listen to my local mad drunks. But I imagine, if pressed for an opinion, that if it is illegal in France it probably will be here.

I have deep seated objections to his occupation actually and I would give him ten years for that in a women's prison to re-condition him so that he ceases to think that women are crying, talking, sleeping, walking living dolls.

I deny that the fact that his business costing us men so much has any influence on my attitude. Absolutely. I'm too much of a Darwinian to allow such a recent development as money to enter my considerations. Money needs another few million years to see if it is approved of by Mother Nature. Mr Galliano's unsmiling, stroppy, stiff-necked, stupidly attired, pelvic wobbling, flat-chested stick-insects will never pass evolution's stern test. Not when there's plenty of rosy-cheeked, roly-poly haystack top gigglers around. No way. The guy's a bloody heretic.

Could you rephrase that para. I tried it a few times and it became more incomprehensible as I proceeded.

But time passed more slowly in those days for the likes of you. There were none of the exciting things you have to make it fly by. Just enduring constant aching, itching and burning sensations for year after year. Nero's squeeze, Sabina Poppaea, gathered all the available modes of relief to her own use. You would have got nothing. And now you have nit-combs which, I have heard in a message from Vancouver, the nits have evolved to counteract. By laying stickier and smaller eggs I presume.

Not really. He viewed it as inciting , not free speech. The law has a clear point over which it shall not be topped. Most of the justices agreed that incitement wasnt reached.
I sorta agree with Alito (Gaaasp) in that this bunch of wackadoo Independent Baptists have made their entire living by inciting to violent response and then suing the **** out of the responders. Theres now a vet Biker Gand who will stand between Westover and the funeral to prevent any future incitement.


I think this is a bit miore complicated than the Rule of "The best way to protect free speech is by more free speech". That is being raped by some of these guys.
Westover is entirely different than the Klan at Skokie.

fm supports Judge Jones when acting alone and opposes 8 out of 9 judges of the USSC. And all of them superior to Judge Jones.

Vot eez zee vorlt comink to?

This has been covered ad nauseam on another thread so could we please get back to the topic here: could you explain how this conclusion (about "extraterrestrial life" remnants lacking nitrogen) follows from the lack of nitrogen in life of terrestrial origin, just dating from very long ago? Thanks!

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html


Edit: wouldn't the claim that lack of nitrogen in "extraterrestrial life" (if that's what it is) depend on claiming outer space conditions applied on earth?

High Seas, Your assumptions make a lot of sense, but we are also not aware of other conditions that might prevail to allow life.

I don't see why your post is on topic HS. The teaching of evolution, indeed any organised teaching, is based upon sociological and psychological factors in the here and now and in the immediate and relatively short term future. A common argument that the teaching of evolution will benefit future science is often put forward. Never justified of course. Just asserted.

Your post is part of that snowstorm which hides the real agenda for the promotion of the teaching of evolution which is, as I have said from long before you entered the fray, to discredit religion and particulary the Christian religion with its inhibitions on sexual morality. It does not count where I am coming from on this important matter and will not distract me.

The absence of nitrogen, or even abundance, in the cyanobacterial filaments detected in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites is neither here nor there, as, indeed, we feel it to be, except for those who enjoy writing such expressions for one reason or another or vicariously consuming them from selected sources of enlightenment which can be relied upon to supply a seemingly unlimited supply of them. We lurch from one gobsmacking scientific dish on the running buffet to another and if they are on TV they are almost always accompanied by a comforting voice, which would be welcomed if one was sinking fast, and music in the swelling Christian tradition both of which help the choc-chocs to go down almost without one noticing.

I remember once getting as far as the fossil insects in Miocene Amber but the dentist's nurse called me in and I had to leave it there.

It's a nice name for a lady's rock group is Miocene Amber. That might frighten Sex Pistols fans.

Not bad for a baby girl in our scientific age.

Spendius I do have a question for you! Could I have a incorrect understanding of this? Another question that I have is, "could you also have a incorrect understanding of your perception of reality?

Your quote:
{The real agenda for the promotion of the teaching of evolution which is, as I have said from long before you entered the fray, to discredit religion and particulary the Christian religion with its inhibitions on sexual morality. It does not count where I am coming from on this important matter and will not distract me.}

Could the conflict be that history of science {truth} has shown that when the church has spoken, " it spoke the knowledge of man and not that of anything that has a more advanced wisdom!

I don't know what you mean but the Church speaks a knowledge of man--yes. I'm at a loss to know what a more advanced wisdom might be just as I expect the Church would be also.

Are you hearing voices or somesuch? Major Tom to Ground Control stuff.

Does not the church speak about the wisdom of God, or is it the wisdom of man that it preaches about?

"Wisdom of god" is an oxymoron.

Do not let Spendius or the church hear you say that

Not exactly. The trouble is that nobody trusts the wisdom of man so the best wisdom we can get has to be given more oomph!!! to make it not look like the wisdom of man because if the wisdom of man is not trusted we end up with no wisdom at all and fight it out like in evolution theory.

I don't see your difficulty rl. Perhaps you believe that the wisdom of God was inscribed on some tablets of stone up on top of a mountain in the desert by a miracle. Perhaps you think, and this is marginally more likely, that we should put Jesus on Ignore along with the Lord's Prayer's "lead us not into temptation" and succumb to temptations like Media, and the producers of temptations, which are the piper calling its tune, and the legal profession, wish, for rather obvious reasons.

There is no other source of the budget deficits and the wars that I can see. And Media and the legal profession neither pays the price nor fights the wars. It prefers screwing your head right off your shoulders. It's easy you see.

Your quote: { Not exactly. The trouble is that nobody trusts the wisdom of man so the best wisdom we can get has to be given more oomph!!! to make it not look like the wisdom of man because if the wisdom of man is not trusted we end up with no wisdom at all and fight it out like in evolution theory.}


So do you find it wise of me to make you my slave and to keep you from learning truth? Would it be Ok if I convinced you in believing that you should build a pyramid to the heavens so that you would be closer to a homosexual god? keep in mind that you would not know whether it was acceptable to god unless I preached it to you!

Would it be Ok of me if I did not allow of you to critically think for your self and lets just say that I had a different point of view than what you have about sexuality.

Suppose that I thought that every man should be gay and that Spendius should have 72 virgin men to be his husbands and that women should only be for reproduction purposes.
{Please keep in mind that if you are gay that this would not pertain to you!}

Do you get my drift as to where you should be able to make up your own mind on some of these issues?

Or do you think that I should be allowed to preach as I would see fit?

I really don't know what to say to that rl.

Spendius If I knew of a better way to show you, "that neither I nor anyone else should try to force our views on you and the rest of the world I would have done so.

If I and others organize and form a church and preach our views that are not built upon logical reasoning {empirical evidence} and tell you that they come from a invisible god that should not be questioned what is this going to do for the masses of people?