Why do people deny evolution?

You still think after all these years that such a point as this is "interesting" fm?



It's baby talk. What might be "interesting" is a response from you to a few more of my posts. Carefully choosing to only pat back slow long-hops is a bit beneath the station you have lead us to think you are occupying.

I never for a moment have thought you had three heads. Closer to half a head maybe.



But blaming that on these debates allows you to pretend that there are not other causes. The non sequitur is multiplied by a second one which is the assertion that the US is fast losing its place in the sciences to countries like Uzbekhitan, which I don't believe.

If it is true it is much more likely that allowing people like you and Jimmy anywhere near science is the real problem. You should both be in the fashion industry. Preening and pouting being the forte of you both.

China is heavily invested in the US in both property and bonds. Considerably more than it is invested in Uzbekhitan (sic). Both of which facts prove that your assertion that the Chinese look at the US as if it has three heads (an unfortunate and ill thought through expression) is complete random babbling.

Perhaps you might think of re-locating to China if you are prepared to talk your country down in order to try to prop up your fatuous points.



"Aint (sic) it neat" might sound in some ears like sarcasm and that you are questioning that freedom, such as it is. You have already admitted that you would abolish it if you got the chance. Which you won't.

And your side started this debate when science was going along quite well. Who doesn't know that Huxley was a megalomaniac with a raging envy of the Church. Huxleyanity to replace Christianity was his dream. And he was as bourgeois as Barbara Cartland underneath the schtick.

And damn it all you then go on to prove that such an inclination is very much to your taste by choosing which amendments have your approval and the one that "We" (which might or might not deserve a 'sic') "must (strong word is that) be diligent about protecting takes priority over one that only a measly "several" are passionate about.

Ain't it neat that such a choice fits your anti-gun position?

You want to re-write the Constitution it would look like to a reasonably careful reader. All on your little ownio. Anybody your very silly post found approval with should take remedial reading lessons. There must be a course somewhere called Introduction to Elementary Reading.



I hope you didn't do a Snowden with the secret fm. One can see why they asked though. It must be baffling to communists I must admit. I hope your replies to the visiting teachers confused them even more. Maybe they reported back to their minders that it was a mystery and the best thing for them to do was to relax controls on religion which is what is happening.

But hey!!, you have got in that you were consulted by foreigners on this important matter. Not that it raises your foot to the next rung of the ladder. It is all of a piece with all the other mush you've presented in order to gain the admiration of a certain section of A2K's members.

Pat that back you silly moocow.

If it were not, why have you been hovering about these threads" after all these years"?

Ive admitted my agenda several times . Whats yours? Other than celebrating the run-on sentence?

What interests me is my affair fm but at this stage being told --



is not on the radar.

It's like standing up at a mathematics symposium to explain that two and two is four.

So I think you were lying. You said it was interesting in order to keep Jimmy sweet and to provide you with an opportunity to compose the ridiculous post you did which, as I explained, had to be assuming an audience of dunces. You couldn't possibly have found it interesting and I very much doubt anybody else did.

There is no way an intelligent audience was being considered.

I offered Spengler's version of the pecking order of religion and biology and Jimmy's little blurt might be read to support it. They are not on equal footing. You jump to the conclusion you have because you are biased. Which is not scientific. Handling scientific instruments is not necessarily science. It might be more of a photo op milking science.

And too much of that is a more likely cause of the decline of US science you claim to have detected than the presence of religious activity which was the normal situation when science was making its greatest strides.

Spengler was scathing about evolution and Darwin every time he mentions the matters. Banal is one word he uses and ideal for simpletons to latch on to to prove they are not simpletons.

How would flat-out eugenics not be the inevitable consequence of your position? If you can reassure us on that point we might be more prepared to give you a hearing. Control of reproduction must be the control freak's greatest ambition after control of socialisation is accomplished.

Piss-balling about with Jimmy's puerile points is easy. Answer that.

But the members of that committee are all elected. You lot can't even offer a candidate because on the hustings you would be asked questions you prefer to ignore in these little goldfish bowls and everybody would see that you had done so.

It looks like you think elected people should have no say. All totalitarians think that.

going on with Spenglers views and eugenetics and "Abendlande" is why the NAzis first put him up as a standard carrier of their beliefs (Everything except that racial superiority thing

Spengler spoke out against the Nazi party before it was elected.



But at least you offer a proper application of Godwin.

What about the eugenics question fm? You couldn't just ignore that on the hustings like you can in this play-pen. One might easily imagine that you would make asking it illegal.

You ought to know fm that you are making one hell of a mess of the scientific case. You continually address people who don't count. Sure they get to vote but when the spinners have delivered them to the polling booths they don't know which way up they are and fall randomly into one camp or the other.

Maybe I also am addressing people who don't count but that is not my fault. One never knows. I don't assume it as you obviously do.

People who count don't go around delivering a manifesto before they have considered it carefully.

actually he was disappropriated by the NAzis in 1934. His original thoughts were eagerly gathered by them in the early days

the only one whos associated with "manifestos" is you.
Its a good thing you are transparent and your rambling thoughts are immiscible (even with your run on " attempted transition statements")

the only one whos associated with "manifestos" is you.
Its a good thing you are transparent and your rambling thoughts are immiscible (even with your run on " attempted transition statements")

Which has nothing to do with Spengler and can only have resulted from a misunderstanding of his hypothesis. Darwin's thoughts have been eagerly gathered by all sorts of weird and wonderful people.

Are you not up for the eugenics question? I hope you are not trying to hide it from your fans so that you can lead them blindfolded into the only logical outcome of science in control of reproduction such as has been applied to racehorses. Culling the slow ones out of sight of the cameras.

The fast ones being tested scientifically rather than with verbal fanny from on high heavily larded with oohing and aahing words.

My manifesto is to cut off at the knees half-baked, power-mad, riders on science's coat tails.



I aim to be transparent.



That's just another big girly blouse assertion and is only permissible, by special dispensation, for big girls in blouses.

Saying that shortly after saying this--



is quite amusing don't you think? It's not as cheap as a manifesto--it's a bloody clarion call for a crusade.

Oh yeah!! That's not a manifesto I suppose? And it's a load of empty blather as well. It is simply a gush of emotion which few people dare not not approve of. So you can beam with satisfaction. Pretty much on every utterance.

The 1st prohibits making laws which abridge free speech. It has **** all to do with abridgements of free speech which are not only rife these days, and getting rifer by the minute, but were pretty common before the ink was dry on the signatures. There is more than one way to abridge free speech, a lot more. Prof. Gray writes of the censorship function of science. And Mass Media has become one giant abridger of free speech. Drip, drip method employed with great skill by the best that money can buy. What little you have of it must have arrived in your noggin by osmosis.

As long as making laws against the abridgement of free speech is prohibited everything is hunky-dory and free speech can get freely on abridging free speech without let or hindrance.

My experiences in a few Arabic nations suggest that depriving men of their wits is not as easy as it sounds.

You had better get busy.



Nobody has any real idea what the debt ceiling means. They might see it as a magic carpet slowly rising into the mists I suppose. But they have no real idea what it means. And there they sit gawking at a screen or a paper all agog about it. Now when a person watches a programme or reads an article and doesn't know what it means, repeatedly, they have had their wits abridged never mind their freedom of expression.

When you are confident that you have got a majority into such a state is the time to move in. As long as you're not seen bickering among yourselves about certain issues. Global warming say. Pork barrel futures.

The famous "MELTDOWN" pants-shitter meant for most abstaining on the nightly Havana cigar every Friday. Or settling for a 3 year old car when a 1 year old had been the ambition.

Some us began to revel in how austere we were being on ourselves in the public interest.

Like when people use "Green" stuff in order to save the ******* planet. Gas especially. The pleasure of feeling virtuous is merely a colour-conditioned reflex by now. Evolution theory suggests every product will be "Green" before long because organisms seek pleasure. There's a Green Airline. To not be "green" is getting to be like not wearing trousers which, as every anthropologist knows, are veils for the private parts when not used for protection.

Tell me fm if it is true, as I read once in an American book about the oil industry, that gas is, or used to be, a waste product from the cat-cracker which could only sensibly be disposed of by motorists and how "neat" it turned out to be that another waste product, the sludge, could be used to make the roads on which they could motor. The flare is like the motorist in the sense that it makes another waste product disappear quietly in the direction of the winds.

You're such a joke. I can't even count the amount of /facepalms I do while reading each and every one of your essentially meaningless posts.

Hmm.


Nor I

Heh. Another load of meaningless insults and crack philosophy, irrelevant to the original question of this discussion. Or, as it seems, some try to add relevancy where it is impossible.

But, even discourses like this post are essentially ( if not ccompletely ) irrelevant and utterly useless. Hmm.

Therefore, every time I post something like this, it wastes not only my time, but the time of the people who chance to read it.

So, to more efficiently use my time, I shall merely say, Enjoy your fruitless and utterly futile mission to change other peoples minds to fit your own biased views. Face it. NONE of us are unbiased here.

I being of people choose to deny evolution, yet at the same time am open to it.

Clarify.