Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Did somebody actually say that Io? I can understand your guffaw if they did.

But I didnt think it was funny when you confessed to liking little children in a manly way .

Of course **** for brains always tries to list someones, anyones work without even realising there is controversy in history and he should find the expert held in the widest high regard . He is happy if he just finds the topic on google . For him, that was hard enough given his qualifications in history .

What are your credentials, **** for brains ?

All your latest spin doctoring was to obfuscate any necessary reply to :

Are you talking about from midday on every day ?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show me where I said that before you go all misty eyed at you and **** for brains having a shower together .

Sing along : twenty green bottles, sitting on the wall....

Will you show me where I said that or do you think given all your qualifications a declaration of your omni prescience is enough ?

That thread can be reopened if you have googled enough in the intervening time . Not that I would expect you to have the guts, **** for brains .

ID bet that we could do a frontal lobotomy and partial hemispherical resections on both of sets hemispheres and hed still outscore you two morons together in history.
Spendi doesnt even know why Stern had the free time to write his works that he is so fond of quoting.Or, if spendi did know, he carefully avoids the subject so as not to affect his "thesis'

Not thaT Im advancing that . However, it would be a way to make any history debate between the schmuck sisters (SHPENDI and ANUS) and SET fairer for the schmucks.

You really like **** for brains because he lets you insult him....that makes you feel good, doesnt it Gomer ?

Gomer the Turd must seek help .

All drunk and brave already ? Or still ? Tell us again how only americans know history....never mind that they havent been in it all that long......

That requires an explanation. I'm not sure why anybody has the free time to write. I avoid nothing that I know of.

Anti-IDers are experts in avoidance as we have seen on many occasions.

My basic thesis on Sterne is that schoolteachers have hidden his works from their students for personal reasons and I do my little bit to give him back to some of them. It is the same with all the writers I mention. It is what I think Able 2 Know is for.



James Boswell.

spendi, YOu keep using the word "anti-IDer" as if it has any meaning; it doesn't. There is no such term, because it doesn't make any sense. How can anyone be anti-creation? One must first believe in creation, but there is no evidence, except in one comic book called the bible, that this earth was created 7,000 years ago.

You're pretty damn ignorant for somebody who claims to be a reader.

We have an old saying here in the USA but I do not quite understand it, I was hoping that you may shed some light on it!

It goes kind of like this!

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.

It's a funny old saying rl.

Sayings are usually pithier than that and make some point which your example singularly fails to do unless one agrees with the speaker's definitions of "progress"," improvement", "better", "mitigation" and "consistently".

"A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is pithy and can be verified in practice.

If you try your saying out in social gatherings I would use "advancement", or some such, rather than repeating the word "progress". The repetition of "progress" gives the impression of a limited vocabulary. "Positive furtherance" isn't bad.

But if it really is an "old" saying, which I don't believe for a moment, then surely it is old-fashioned and even conservative.

I take it that you are ok with the phrase {every step toward} but the word progress seems to strike a emotional nerve in you?

Would this old saying be true if we excluded the christian church from it?

I think there is a sense, whether poetic or not is a matter of taste, or feeling, that something might be "too true to be good". Evolution theory might be just such a case. That the true is a bit horrid really. Which I would have little difficulty in finding examples for verification. I am so spoilt for choice that I'm confused as to how to compose a rising crescendo of horridness which my literary aesthetics demands I should attempt.

The true does inhabit imaginative flights of fancy on which much science is based and too much emphasis on the true might well inhibit future scientific endevour. It can hardly be inspiring as it is, by definition, banal.

"Emotional" seems to strike an emotional nerve in you rl.

Please explain!

You explain why "progress" strikes an emotional nerve in me first. It's you're idea not mine.

Going back to the "true"---it is true that nobody ever collected one of the prizes on offer for the scientific proof of telepathy.

But scientifically, telepathy must exist. If thoughts are electrical impulses, possible no more than the crude articulation of electrical impulses, then they must give off radiation. The radiation might not get very far for two reasons--

1-The denseness of the material surrounding the "thought".

2-And the weakness of it. If the thought suffused the whole brain it might make it powerful enough to get out and radiate further into space.

I've conducted experiments along those lines in pubs. If I stare at the back of a woman's head thinking concentratedly with suffusion on full power how much I would like to get her between the sheets with no kit on, she will almost invariably, after a few minutes, turn round and catch my eye.

Look how flocks of starlings change direction together. And those dense shoals of fish.

That it is true that no-one has claimed any prize for the scientific proof of telepathy is possibly due to the experimental conditions "scientists" lay down for the test.

To say that such a failure is proof that there is no such thing as telepathy is a hallmark of the completely unscientific mind stuck in its own little cobweb festooned cubicle. It's "clever dick" stuff that takes us nowhere.

Nanny goats can be directed for miles by the will of a Billy goat I've read.

So do you think that these electrical impulses so to speak are at a higher voltage {or energy} than what you consume off of the power grid? If not I would consider getting free electricity way before I would consider sending you a telepathic explanation of what we are talking about!