Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

What were the "irrational statements" fm? Assertions don't wash in scientific debates. When, oh when, are you going to get that obvious fact into your noddle? Not only don't wash but can't because as soon as they do it is no longer a scientific debate. It is a bus queue conversation with a bevy of tea-ladies. Which I am well aware would be your ideal audience.

It is also a well known fact in educated circles that any authority the puritanical faith in scientific absolutes, usually derived from a loss of faith in fundamentalism, might once have had was obliterated by Einstein. I merely alluded to such a century old article of faith of the real scientific community.

Your scientific veneer is in that state one sometimes sees in the veneer of items of furniture being knocked down at the rate of one every minute at provincial auctions of antiques. The buyers presumably intend restoring them to something akin to their former glory when they were the proud possession of the young bride whose death at the age of 98 occasioned the house-clearance operatives to enter them in the sale.

Any antique item of furniture in your state would be bought solely for the value of the materials if, say, it happened to be made of wood from the species T.grandis of the tectona genus from the lamiaceae family in the order of the lamiales which, as an expert handyman, you will know quickly blunts finely honed cutting blades because of the presence of silica in its cellular structures. Or the loose screws having a certain rarity value.

Restoration being out of the question.

You have quoted a number of eminent Americans in order to "Link" your own statements with someone else's. On many occasions. Judge Jones for example, who seems wholly unaware that Einstein discombobulated scientific absolutes once and for all.

It was just another demonstration of the anti-IDers marked propensity to criticise others for things they do all the time. ci. accused me of employing ad hominems and non-sequiturs the other day. Which is pretty unbelievable considering the rate at which he adapts such things to his use. And I explained and justified my usage for him which he never does with any of his constant barrage of ad-homs and non-sekkies.

How can something be "ridiculous" if it provides amusement? You don't even know your Rabelais. Or your Sterne. Amusement is the most prized commodity on earth when the crude biological necessities are satisfied. More than gold. Even at $1428.90 which is what gold is worth at this very moment if such a thing as a moment can be imagined.

It's a concept. Therefore, it has no material existence.

What a stupid assumption.

Logic is not something used by either spendius or ionus. I seldom read more than a sentence of a spendius post: the writing is just too bombastic to wade through.

You're not up to speed on materialism pom. Not that I expect you to be but it might be better if you didn't flaunt it.

You probably got into a state of imagining yourself a materialist pom by not reading more than a sentence of anything you didn't have vetted for you.

Like all modern radical and revolutionary projects anti-ID is at bottom an attack on private property which hasn't the guts for a frontal assault.

spendi, Here's a clue; sometimes I only read one sentence out of your 15 paragraphs of nothings. When you start your composition with irrelevance, it's a waste of time to read the following sentences and paragraphs.

When you diagram a sentence where the objwects and verb dont agree, (lile apendis above post), does the sentence explode?

I'm not up to speed on materialism spendi.

Explain how the radical and revolutionary anti-ID program is an attack on private property.

I'm sure the sentence won't explode. I had a burner on an electric oven that exploded once. Never had a sentence explode. Implode, perhaps, under the weight of its own tedium. Tedium is something spendi has in spades.

This sentence of his that you reposted here is interesting. ". . . anti-ID is [,] at bottom [,] an attack on private property . . ." (Sorry, but I had to insert commas.)

That is quite a stretch! So, if you believe in evolution, you are certain to be a second-storey man, breaking into your neighbor's house, stealing his goods? Is that what spendi spews (note: I did not use the word thinks.)

Or is he saying that those who believe in evolution are, of necessity, communists? That would match his rant on materialism. Why he is dragging materialism into this discussion is strange. Materialism is probably another diversionary tactic, an attempt to hide the emptiness of his contributions.

We're all in the same boat with you on that one.

I wonder if Spendius is just looking out for the queen because when people start to critically think for themselves they start to see ethical problems with our current mode of private property.
Some people are afraid that the people will rise up in large numbers to balance the ethical playing field!

I am sure that I could be wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FY0930P9Qc

A little something to think about and to be dis-proven!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnafBDbQosU&feature=related

Under the new dispensation breaking into people's houses will get you shot or sent to the Gulag. Work will be compulsory, a full-blown eugenics programme instituted and a bright steely glint will appear in the eyes of anti-IDers. Like fm's avvie.

You can take it as read that getting rid of God is the first priority of the attack on private property. Asserting that the idea is diversionary can be countered by saying that that's what I would say in your position but I would know it was camouflage.

You all seem a bit defensive about getting rid of private property. It ought to be the banner under which you stride forward, glad,confident morning looking, into the glorious sunny uplands of the future. You might as well because anybody who knows anything about this **** knows full well what you're at and if you lot don't it is because you are the soft dupes of those who do. You don't expect me to believe that it's the head-banging fundies you're after do you? Really? !! They're harmless.

What's wrong with the idea of attacking private property? It might get rid of that chasing after happiness by getting one up on the neighbours. Addiction to that produces a constant sub-text on A2K. I notice little nudges and winks in the direction of ego tweets in conversations of all types. They litter the site.

A pal of mine left his wife when she banged him on the head with one. She spent his week's wages from the foundry on an antique telephone table. It seems obvious to me that getting one up on the neighbours when ratcheted up by Media into a raging obsession, and its paymasters, will result in a financial meltdown.

People earning very high multiples of what our poor get, never mind the world's, is a bit of an obscenity really. And they are all getting one up on the neighbours at bottom. It's a powerful argument to go into battle with. I wouldn't be ashamed of it. Think of the ease of the bone. I don't mind admitting that the Church is a bit of an obscenity. Where would you lot be if it wasn't?

We are not in the position Russia was in when they tried it, or something akin to trying it. It's time and place might have come and those at the forefront who have the nerve will reap the rewards if they ride the crest of the wave. Then they can demonstrate what getting one up on the neighbours really looks like when a determined effort is made.

I'm for muddling through. And so are you lot if you haven't enough hair on your whatsits to "come out". Forget the chichlids and the poor little flagella being likened to a bloody carburettor and not even present in court to defend it self. It was as bad as demonstrating human copulation with a milk bottle and a banana as one local enlightened young lady teacher did in a "sex lesson" for 8 year olds. Kids never think about where they come from. I certainly don't remember the thought crossing my mind before I was about 17. It rarely does even now. These people who scratch about in the dusty archives hoping to find an ancestor who had blue blood make me titter uncontrollably. Just let them find one eh. Put the other 1,023 on Ignore, if the ancestor is 10 generations back via a murky series of fucks.

You talk about diversionary tactics. From the guilty response it looks like I fired a flaming arrow into the dead centre of the bullseye.

I beg your pardon?



In your cups are ya lad? Should be near closing time at the pub.



Here we arrive at the paranoid rant where spendi's nemeses constantly nudge-nudge wink-wink.



This little personal vignette steers us away from the original offending sentence. May I remind everyone?



Three more paragraphs of blah blah blah and then a missile aimed at the hearts of all those who won't worship the keyboard "The Spendius" types on.




By the way spendi I disagree with pom. I find some of your scribbling very erudite and learned. In other words I LEARN from it. That is my basis for being here.

I thought it was too, plainoldyou .

Maybe I have this wrong but are you replying to the comment that atheist believe in magic?

Spendi has no idea that it is not private property we are defending. We are all attacking his logic.

I thought it was an unfair comparison to say that anyone who believes in God may as well believe in the Tooth Fairy, but when the same standards are applied to Atheists there are immediate shouts of "but our fairies are real!"

If it is unfair for one side to extrapolate that far, then it is also unfair for the other .

Well pan--you can keep your pen-knife, your conkers and your match-box full of dried willow bark.

I can not speak in empirical terms when it comes to the percentage of atheist that believe in magic and crazy things such as the tooth fairy!
I do realize that there are some that may believe in all sorts of crazy stuff in my opinion but I would hope that they are a small minority but I have no clue!

I myself try very hard not to believe or should I say {think} of things that can not be shown with some sort of materialist or experimental proof!

Please keep in mind even though this may be my view point, I do not think that I have life figured out in a empirical way!
That is why I await for others as yourself to show me that I am wrong in my understanding of reality!