@farmerman,
Quote:Why do people deny evolution?
why indeed.
I have given you 21 or 22 reasons fm and you have rebutted none of them. Nor attempted to.
But now gb and Germie have come in to try to dumb us down you will be more comfortable. I know you have no attention span worthy of the name but one of those reasons I gave was the avoidance of being associated intellectually with folk like you, gb and Germie and others who are scared witless of considering, never mind concluding, that we are machines or that evolution is crippled by monogamy and the inevitable nepotism it causes.
You are also scared witless of considering, never mind concluding, that we are not machines.
@spendius,
Quote:You are also scared witless of considering, never mind concluding, that we are not machines.
We are not machines of course, we are infinite consciousness having an experience:
@farmerman,
Quote:A few years ago, one of our English members picked the majority winners on our annual NFL pick-em game and hes sorta like our prognoctopus.
I forgot to mention that it was me. I confess to winning the A2K Pick-Um game two seasons running against 20 odd Yanks.
And fm was scared of playing.
@glitterbag,
It ALL boils down to the fact that, whatever rason the evolution deniers use, their only reason is because it interferes with their worldview.
Quahog claims "lzck of evidence" yet he never is able to form an argument of his own. He is only able to post religious based crap to deny a scientific theory.
Funny and uncompelling.
@spendius,
Quote:Quote:
I have given you 21 or 22 reasons fm and you have rebutted none of them.
You really haven't at all old girl. You've spouted ingeminations at us all and have called each one unique and distinct. In reality your reasons seem to revolve around a religious theme as well.
@farmerman,
Quote:You really haven't at all old girl.
What's that supposed to mean fm aside from nothing. I gave reasons why people might deny evolution one at once with plenty of time for you to rebut each and every one. You didn't. You're not interested in them.
There is no religious theme in my posts. I'm an atheist and an evolutionist and think we are machines and that free love should be legally required and such things as marriage with its accompanying corrosive nepotism should be banned. Aldous Huxley worked that simple logic out for you 80 odd years ago and you're comforting yourself by giving it the old Ignoreimustbeatallcosts like the baldy-headed tub of lard you are.
And until you agree with that I will consider your strategic evolutionism half-baked as Darwin's was.
You can't get it into your thick skull that assertions mean **** all to me. That they mean something to you is your problem and that of your claque of what look from here to be as stupid as you are.
@farmerman,
Quote:How little do we know our thoughts--our reflex actions indeed, yes;
but our reflex reflections! Man, forsooth, prides himself on his
consciousness! We boast that we differ from the winds and waves and
falling stones and plants, which grow they know not why, and from
the wandering creatures which go up and down after their prey, as we
are pleased to say without the help of reason. We know so well what
we are doing ourselves and why we do it, do we not? I fancy that
there is some truth in the view which is being put forward nowadays,
that it is our less conscious thoughts and our less conscious
actions which mainly mould our lives and the lives of those who
spring from us.
The Way Of All Flesh by Samuel Butler. Chapter 5.
That might be what Q has in mind. And "nowadays" then has been left a long way behind.
Machines don't know things you silly ******. And atheists have no choice but to see us as machines.
Phoney atheists, like you, are simply out to undermine Christian morality but only for personal reasons and definitely not for widespread agreement which would scare you shitless.
I could never understand chaps who married twice. Getting out of one marriage with some of your skin still intact should be quite sufficient for any intelligent bloke.
In order to protect him from a second flaying he needs must not mean any of the vows he blurted out in which case it is a pretend marriage. Not the real thing. Like pretending to be a scientist or a sheep farmer or a nautical explorer of offshore waters.
Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools
In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the UK government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools.
The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the...
...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.
So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum."
In the UK, state-funded academies are basically equivalent to charter schools in the United States, and are primarily comprised of high schools. Free schools, which were introduced in 2010, are non-profit making, independent, state-funded schools which are not controlled by a local authority, but are subject to the School Admissions Code. Free schools make it possible for parents, teachers, charities, and business to set up their own schools.
In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
Does the new Pope believe in evolution?
The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian…
Read more
Back in 2012, the UK government banned all future free schools from teaching creationism as science, requiring them to teach natural selection. At the time, however, it didn't extend those requirement to academies, nor did the changes apply to existing free schools. The new verbiage changes this, precluding all public-funded schools — present or future — from teaching creationism as evidence-based theory.
The new church academies clauses require that "pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact." And by "creationism" they mean:
[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.
And in regards to protecting religious beliefs, the clauses acknowledge that the funding agreement does...
...not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.
Seems fair and reasonable to me.
The British Humanist Association, which has been advocating for the change since 2011 via its "Teach Evolution, Not Creationism" campaign, is celebrating the move.
"[We] believe that... the objectives of the campaign are largely met," noted BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement. "We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue." He added: "However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector. We will continue to work for reform in the remaining areas, but are pleased that the vast majority of issues are now dealt with."
This move by the UK government stands in stark contrast to what's happening in the United States. In Missouri, for example, a proposed bill would require schools to "alert" parents when evolution is taught.
@edgarblythe,
Quote:Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools
Now
evolution shite itself being banned because of being NON-SCIENTIFIC!
why are hoaxes allowed at schools???
@Quehoniaomath,
You dumb ****. I am going to ignore your posts after today.
But there are even more ways to see that evolution is a more than idiotic idea:
Quote:666, that very famous and most enigmatic of numbers has puzzled everyone ever since it first appeared. The solution to its true meaning lay in the words which came with it 'let him who has understanding reckon the number'. "Reckon" is another way of saying 'calculate', but even that didn't help much. Neil however has discovered that the 'calculate' means this - 6 X 6 X 6, for this 666 number is the key to unlocking the true cypher which encodes further data. The number produced is 216 and it is this three number string which has been used to construct our world and much that's in it, including man. He has also found that the number is frequently scaled, up or down, to provide other constants such as 21.60 (the pre ice-age tilt of Earth) and 2,160 miles (the diameter of the moon) and many more. It may be multiplied and divided by the cardinal numbers which give up more constants. This is not a maths book but a very readable explanation of how we were made through the application of a design specification.
Quote:"'an engineer, Neil has turned his mind to the question of how life itself works and has discovered the answer is mathematical. His thesis centres around base 6, or 60 as used by the the ancient Sumerians, and it suggests that we as well as our planet and solar system have been constructed or placed according to this 'engineering specification' of base six. Neil speculates that this number system was put in place not by God but by "them" whom we may call gods. To him, it's not accidental that the same "bizarre numbers" keep cropping up all over the place. Neil demonstrates a host of dazzling numerical correspondences, mostly extrapolated from the famous number 666; multiplied out out (6 X 6 X 6), it gives a key number 216, which produces other fundamental constants. Interestingly all the numbers between 1 and 36 add up to 666. Neil applies his findings to show how 666 and related numbers can be found in the human form (216 bones in the human body!), in our DNA, in monuments like the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge and in ancient and modern measurement systems. It can even be seen in the "building and placing" of the moon, which he calculates is hollow apart from a 300 mile thick crust. I f you are fascinated by numbers and sacred geometry, this book will be a treat.' NEXUS MAGAZINE 'We live in a world of illusory form and solidity, a vibrational and mathematical construct and William Neil is uncovering the numbers that hold it together. Highly recommended'. DAVID ICKE BOOKS' 'This book identifies the real meaning of 666and its relationship to our existence. The author's knowledge of both ancient history, and numbers,coupled with the ability to tell a real story, makes this book a fascinating journey of discovery. The elusive key of 666 is pursued through many constructs and shows conclusively how the creator engineers built up systems, such as mankind and the Earth-moon twins, using only specified numbers. Also shown is that the imperial system of measure is one of theirs too, which allows us to see where the numbers are hidden. The discoveries in this book are not opinions, but irrefutable observations of facts, and the body of evidence which is produced, is quite unsettling'.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-We-Were-Made-Revelations/dp/0954595718
This book makes it ver clear that we and the world are NOT an accident
made by some stupid random mutations. Just IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh boy! Do I hear soldier boots coming my way?!
Welcome...to the REAL world!
@edgarblythe,
Quote:You dumb ****. I am going to ignore your posts after today.
PLESE DO!
AND NOW, PROMISE ME THAT YOU WON'T REACT TO MY POSTINGS ANYMORE!
Many thanks!
@Quehoniaomath,
Really Q. Why do you post that garbage? Everyone knows that babies come from storks as this picture clearly proves.
@parados,
Really Q. Why do you post that garbage? Everyone knows that babies come from storks as this picture clearly proves.
Well, tell me, exactly WHAT is garbage and why?
( I guess you haven't read the book at all, of course?!)
or do you mean the evolutiontheorybullshitbollockshoax?
@Quehoniaomath,
It's garbage to say the moon is 2160 in diameter. Everyone who falsely believes the moon is real knows its 3,478 km in diameter.
Of course that is ignoring the fact that the moon is really a hoax and doesn't exist at all.
Jesus said
"The work God requires is to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28 )
in other words the purpose of human life is to lock onto and connect with Jesus, it's the FINAL STEP in human evolution..
But sadly, many atheists can't manage it and give up, (like Edgar who ripped up a bible as a young man), so their evolution is at a standstill and they'll end up as beefburgers-
"These men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed.." (2 Peter 2:12)
@Quehoniaomath,
From the cover of the referenced book I see a projection of a Markovian matrix. Markovian matrixes are a great to study food chains in a stable environs. However, evolutionary adaptation is enhanced during times of environmental stress where new niches are being created and destroyed. During those times of change Markovian analysis don't fit.
If the author is making the claim that evolution is unlikely during times of environmental stasis--his claim is defensible. If he is making the claim that evolution is unlikely during times of environmental instability, he's a quack selling beachfront property to the gullible.
Rap
@parados,
Quote:Of course that is ignoring the fact that the moon is really a hoax and doesn't exist at all.
That is a bit dumb I have never stated that!
where do these people come from?
@raprap,
Quote:If the author is making the claim that evolution is unlikely during times of environmental stasis--his claim is defensible.
I wouldn't like to try defending such a claim rap. How would you go about it if you tried?
Is there ever environmental stasis?
