Why do people deny evolution?

@OldGrumpy,

Looks like Nothing substantive is forthcoming or expected from Quahog . Just silly stupid conspiracy rants and screams against people who are gainfully employed in areas he knows nothing about.
.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

As a rule of thumb most pre Python stuff tends to be in black and white. Python did do this sketch later on, but this is the original.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

when did the ensemblle actually form (ither in part or in shole?).I realize they had other names and maybe they grew out of the Goons?

I never did any follow up on them, just followed them as a kid in the early 70's when a new network PBS bgan showing their half hour weekly stuff. PBS also began showing Ernie Kovacs luncheon show in the mid 60's (as I recall) after it was kicked off the air in Philly in the 1950's.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The Goons was inspirational, but none of the Goons became Pythons. There was a group of comics who did occasional work together. Who would go on to form Python was largely down to who was free at the time.

Other than the 1948 show the most Python full pre Python programme was Do Not Adjust Your Set.

It was actually a kid's programme, but adults left work early on a Friday so they could get back home to watch it.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

more total absence of logic and rejection of the clear evidence he has been presented with. Simple denial ddoesn't work, grump.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

more total absence of logic and rejection of the clear evidence he has been presented with. Simple denial ddoesn't work, grump.

rejection of clear evidence? ha ha ha ha ha talking about denial, ha h ah ha a
Ah well go ahead and believe bullshit if you want to.
We have all our right to think whatever we will about what! even 'scientific' non-sense.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

1948??? wow, Some of the Pythons could have been in vaudeville. SO, now I see that when Eric Idle and Jonathan Cleese did that two man off Broadway thing back in the 80's, they credited the MArx Brothers for making insanity appear entertaining.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Ive come to the conclusion that , because his posts arent clever enough, Quahog is only marginally literate. Consequently hes unable to engage in the appreciation of how science is actually done.

I dont think hes a complete moron, but his intelligence is arrested, no doubt about that.

Ill bet that the Bible he uses to acquire all his beliefs, is just chockablock full of pictures and cartoons approved by the committee of the LVB

0 Replies

@farmerman,

That was just the name of the show. It aired in 1967.

Quote:

At Last the 1948 Show is a satirical TV show made by David Frost's company, Paradine Productions (although it was not credited on the programmes), in association with Rediffusion London. Transmitted on Britain's ITV network in 1967, it brought Cambridge Footlights humour to a broader audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Last_the_1948_Show

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

wow, interesting stuff. The Wiki had an entire listing of guests on the show, many of which had follow-on careers

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It's down to circumstance who became Pythons and who didn't. David Jason was a prime contender but he went on to become Del boy in Only Fools and Horses. Marty Feldman teamed up with Mel Brooks. Tim Brooke Taylor formed the Goodies, but the best of the bunch were Pete and Dud.

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Yep, just rant. No facts. No logic.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Yep, just rant. No facts. No logic.

I agree here. Hence no evolution(macro)

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Notice who that post is directed to. Hint: you. Doofus.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Notice who that post is directed to. Hint: you. Doofus.

Yes , and I agreed. as far as evil-lotion goes: no proof, no evidence and a huge lack of logic , so what's your problem here?
(btw in 'science' logic' is seen as inferior to 'science'. why? Because so much in 'science' is untrue and illogical.)

0 Replies

oh and btw is 'survival of the fittest' not circular 'thinking", a tautology?

Ehhhh yes it is.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

SURVIVAL of the FITTEST
Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase a few years BEFORE Darwin's "Origin..." first used the term in print in his 1864 work."Principles of Biology

Quote:

"Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444, wrote: 'This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called "natural selection", or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.'" Maurice E. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy, retrieved 29 August 2007, citing HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac. 2002.)

You claim you aint a Creationist yet your attempts at argument are ALL based on Creationist "thinking", why's that?? You a closet Creationist whose a coward to come out of the closet??

ALSO, you quietly use quotes about MACRO , as if MICRO is ok because the CReationist thinking equates "Micro evolution? with the word "kind", like---"each after its own "KIND".

Ill bet you have no knowledge of the differences twixt micro and macro volution, cause if you did, youd shut your big ignorant yap.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

well I wrote it is still circular thinking and you didn't even bother to adress it, so assume you agree that it is very dumb and stupid circular thinking .

or don't you get it? lol

And I am not even talking about creationst or ID at all, yet , everytime you have a very deep wish to connect me with that, which shows your extremely black and white thinking stupidity. How come?

Gee, anytime you put a post on, you show your ignorance and deep stupidity.

Ah well, so is the state of the world at this moment in time.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

But all your arguments are entirely CREATIONIST in source (or dont you still get it?), you cant be THAT stupid can you???

If you cannot understand the above post of mine involving the history and context of Dr Spencer's phrase, maybe someone of your ilk with an IQ higher than room temperature can explain it to you.

Good Luck

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

But all your arguments are entirely CREATIONIST in source (or dont you still get it?), you cant be THAT stupid can you???

If you cannot understand the above post of mine involving the history and context of Dr Spencer's phrase, maybe someone of your ilk with an IQ higher than room temperature can explain it to you.

Good Luck

well, to see that evolution is very wrong you don't need a high iq at all!
Still, you don't get it.

AND, you still don't adress the tautology.
It is not even important where it comes from. An argument is an argument.
even if a parrot states it. But, sorry to say, you don't even get that, (Not that I had expected that you would get it, of course.)

(btw if you have studied at a uni, your iq must be by definition very very low. Lowering the iq of their students it the job of an uni (among other very dark things. Anyway you are proving this all the time. Most people can see you really can't think out of any box. BUT it is not your fault, you have been purposely made this way)

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know