Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I do think you for the complement and I do also apologies for my derailment at times! Are you familiar with Aron Ra?
I do realize that it may seem at times that I derail this thread but truly I do not mean to as I am only being myself and I have a great interest in human behavior and ethics!

I hope to draw the attention of Ider's as Spendius may put it, so that they may also be able to come to the understanding of the Scientific Method as well! { Not that I understand things empirically}

I find this to be a very good video from the author as well!

Some of you may not like this because the author uses a rectal plug and a dildo to explain his point but non the less he does have a point!

http://www.youtube.com/user/Neanderthalcouzin#p/c/C7602B40FF124890/0/L60qLN2ZDfg

It is idiotic rl to use a word like "sneaking" in an essay on a science thread. That is because any intelligent person will stop reading as soon as they see it. It is the more idiotic the earlier it comes in the piece.

So, following reasoning logic, the usage is counterproductive unless the objective of the essay is to influence unintelligent people who already agree with it. In which case they are wading through badly written, poorly organised, rose-coloured mirror literature and that is the polar opposite of being Abled to Know because they already know it. Hence they are on the wrong site and that is idiotic.

As a scientist it is essential to get labels correct and someone behaving idiotically is called an idiot not in any pejorative sense, as your feminine sensitivity seems to think, but as a fact. It is not a criticism at all. And especially not in view of ci. quoting Einstein that, in effect, the large majority of mankind are stupid.

It is quite striking that you have not seen your way to take ci. to task in your post, which makes the very mistake you are trying to highlight but without any evidence, despite the fact that his signature line is on every post he sends out.

Which causes a logician of sound reason to think that I am singled out for your severe strictures not because of anything I have said but simply because I am aware of the importance of religion in the cultural life of a society.

You will need to define what you mean by a personality disorder before any sensible discussion can take place concerning the matter. Without such a definition, which needs to be scientific to provide internal coherence on a science thread, it does stand in the same relation to "sneaking" as does the deuce of spades in one pack of cards does to the deuce of spades in another.

The idea of pointing such things out is driven by the hope, probably forlorn in this case, that an effort will be made to remedy the very regrettable situation and then the topic under discussion can be dealt with in a manner appropriate to its importance, which is considerable.

In fact, the usages "sneaking" and "OCPD" are as sneaky as sneaky gets and necessarily rely for any value they have on a stupid audience. If they have no value the posts in which they appear can only be caused by an obsessive compulsion.

Not having any interest in rectal plugs or dildoes myself, nor in neanderthal academic systems of thought which are as basic as they are predictable, I trust that my lack of curiosity in the video will be excused.

What I have difficulty in understanding is how people can remain in a debate in which the moral, logical and scientific objections to evolutionary thought have been put to them and they have continued wittering as if such a challenge had not been laid down. "Head in a shed" syndrome.

I have refrained from including the well known objection to evolutionary thought known as "Nos Ancetres, les Gaulois" because I don't think it will be understood in the setting I am in.

Try reading Monte Python's famous dead parrot sketch as an extended metaphor with the parrot standing for rote learning and the forces Cleese is up against as the educational system.

Im amused that, as critical as you are trying to sound, the impact of "Stealth Creationism" has had its desired impact.

The reason that many dont rise to your bait is because , with a few exceptions , most everyone understands the topic of this thread and your counter-points have nothing to do with anything of relevence herein. Ive told you numerous times that, if you consider your points important enough to wreck an existing thread. you should have the decency and manners enough to start your own thread and see how well YOU could sustain it. All the other (all of two) threads youve started, were merely self congratulatory and masturbatory. Id continue to note that Im not going to allow you to do that to this thread since youre obviously only a troll .
Ive noticed and told you several times that all you are capable of doing is to respond in coun ter fashion to whatever was presented in the previous thread, and you do this with boring predictable repetition. Thats not debate, thats merely childish locker room antics.

I am well aware fm that your deciding what is relevant here is a trick to make sure you can't lose the argument. How could you in such circumstances?

And "most everyone understands" is another cheap trick to round up and corral your claque which, as far as I can see, understands nothing regarding these important matters.

Your remarks are certainly a weary excuse for failing to even attempt to rebut the moral, logical and scientific objections to evolutionist thought which I placed on the record. If such objections are valid, as I think they are, as are some others I know, then it is obvious that they constitute an objection to teaching evolution. They are on topic to the highest degree and your post is not.

I can just as easily say, as I now do, that the reason no anti-IDer, never mind that tricky word "many", will "rise to my bait" is that they are intellectually incapacitated from doing so. If they weren't intellectually incapacatitated in that respect I feel sure they would have swallowed the bait and the hook.

Your silly assertion salad is babyish and examples of it should not be allowed near any science classrooms. "Bait" being ridiculous.

It seems obvious to me that you have never lost an argument in your life and no wonder when you lay down the conditions in which it takes place which seem to consist of you lecturing and only accepting questions that you have a ready answer for. Most intelligent people would eventually realise that such a state is something to worry about.

I have seen no "Stealth Creationism". It is all out in the open and subject to the democratic process.

It is not only the height of bad manners but also profoundly stupid to accuse me of wrecking a thread with this title when I offered a moral, logical and scientific challenge to evolution theory, precisely what we are invited to do, simply because you have no answer to those challenges.

You start a thread on the wondrous excellence of farmerman which is all you seem to be concerned about. That pathetic post is trolling. Worse. It actually tries to justify not dealing with challenges to teaching evolution and giving you carte blanche to determine science education in other areas of the world.

The three objections to evolution I offered the other day, the moral, logical and scientific, have never been mentioned before on these threads or in any of the media coverage we have seen. As such they can hardly be classed as "predictable" and they will only be classed as "boring" by those who have no other response to them.

spendi, What "tricks" are you talking about? Please list some for us, because I'm interested in those tricks.

They were laid out for you ci. There were others I didn't mention.

I don't think fm could find a position in English education on the basis of what he writes here.

He can't even get simple facts right. I have started 5 threads.

No, spendi, what you laid out were your own opinions without any credible support from anyone else. Your statements are challenges without foundation. As I've told you before, starting any opinion with "anti-IDer" goes no place, because it has no meaning in the English language. It's all in your own imagination; it's not factual, and it has no value.

It's a double negative.

This seems to be the best origins of life video that I have seen yet!

Does anyone have one that comes close? if so please share it with us all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yCj0MVJIh0&feature=channel_video_title

That post is as stupid as fm's was and for roughly the same reasons.

Everybody pertinent to this thread knows what an anti-IDer is. It's easier to explain than anti-gravity. Or a biological anti-fluctuator. To compare a flagella whatsit to a valve in a pump is as daft, dafter actually, as comparing a biological antifluctuator to the neck of a blown up balloon. To attempt such a thing in a court is as gross an insult to the bench as I think possible. What it said about reporters who copied it out for their readers avid to find a way of discrediting Christian sexual morality is anybody's business.

I was as much at pains to avoid any opinions in my three posts on the moral, logical and scientific objections to evolutionary thinking as you anti-IDers are in avoiding attempts to respond to them.

You will find them on pages 543/4 or thereabouts.

Evolutionary thought became moribund when the ideas of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim penetrated Western culture. The sociology of the transition to industrialisation being the only game in town for serious people like Mr Jindal. This "episode" is not coextensive with the world. We can with some effort step outside of it to study it. One has to learn to walk through history at the same speed we walk through life now. No 100 Year's War bullshit. Then the barbarian hordes swept down on Rome crappo.

The idea of some bozo in Pa waving his arms about on the strength of a diploma in bloody geology, probably fiddled if Veblen is anything to go by, or Salinger, and holding forth on the history of life on earth, is comical, because of the disproportion of the statue to the base, and contemptible in its servile prostration before the readings off scientific instruments all of which were developed by Christians like Torricelli, Galileo and the good Bishop of Brixen, Nicholas Cusanus, who got it off Jesus and are housed in buildings erected by Christians and serviced by Christians. Christians are the fastest thing this side of Hoag's Object. The idea that they are holding us back is moronic. Evolutionary thinking will hold us back.

I think fm was given too big a desk. Too long a title too. Those and the diploma made him dizzy with the official confirmation of his excellence. He could hardly in such circumstances avoid contemplating everything. And he can't step outside of that. Our intellectual tools for stepping outside the transition to industrialism may be still crude but there are none at all for stepping outside of everything. The philosopher's "Pure Visitor" is only possible for the transition to industrialism which, as an episode, may not last.

Long live diversity. Science is rigid. Inhuman. Useful though I'll admit. Imagine a hammer in your toolkit grabbing your palm and making you hammer away all day long. Science is a tool and should know its proper place.

Why do you search for pre-industrial settings for your trips?

Spendius if I go back and respond to post 543-544 will you respond to my questions that pertain to a video about Socrates?

As nobody knows anything worthwhile about the origins of life rl the video is bound to be a load of bullshit. It'll be another begging bowl job. More research needs to be done I suppose. It usually is.

Can these guys not improve our chances of captating the benevolence of the omnijugal, omniform, and omnigenous feminine sex so that we might invisitate the lupanars, and in venerean ecstasy inculcate our veretres into the penitissim recesses of the pudenda of these amicabalissime meretricules? Or anything equally useful?

Nah--suit yourself whether you go back to my posts. I'm not bothered either way. They are there on the thread. I've done quite enough of your videos thanks all the same. They are dreadful.

spendi, God created Adam and Eve (from Adam's ribs), then he got his hormones going and got Mary pregnant with his son. How did god know it was going to be a male? Doesn't god love women? Why didn't god create Jesus the same way he created Adam? Both are god's miracles, aren't they?

Virgin birth; yea, yea. Unfortunately for christianity, there's been virgin birth myths before jesus' time.

Very good point CI that is exactly what the church teaches against " not to ask yourself why, how or what. "Instead they want you to ask them so that they can think for you!

You can see what it has done for Spendius! You can bet if Spendius calls a video bad it must be at least worth checking out!

Socrates on Self-Confidence
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2rsiER-OnU&feature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28VIz9gg0po&feature=related


Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNaeL7vdax8&feature=related

Can't you do your own self confidence rl instead of taking lessons from the most henpecked husband in the historical records from before women were given the vote.

I do realize that you hate all of the fathers of logical reasoning and I would too, "if I was brought up with the same brain and environment that you were exposed to because it is only psychological for you to do so!

Good observation! Do you think that it had anything to do with his skills?