There is plenty more to be said. We haven't got to the "controversial issues" yet. If you want to get straightforward you need to deal with those. Your definition of straightforward just means restricting the discussion in such a way that you can't lose. Like at Dover.
I was referring to your pretenses of lyrical wit
Make a cogent and coherent point, then follow up with cogent and coherent discussion.
I've been doing that for 4 years.
That you don't understand anything other than one point disconnected bits written in fake scientese is not my problem.
I'll make a point I've made dozens of times. Evolution science is not like any other branch of science because it is directly and intimately related to *******.
And without the slightest doubt. And the classrooms, PTAs, staff rooms and administative departments in education contain nothing of significance that is not human organism and thus the subject, if treated properly, rather than with you lot with your knickers pulled up tightly, contains "controversial issues", which are not found in other parts of science, such as the digestive system of a rabbit, or gravity, but which directly impinge on the personal lives of all those humans and in highly sensitive areas.
Which leads to the question of why you want this half-baked evolution science in the face of 14-16 year olds who probably already know more about the matter than is good for them.
A good candidate for that is that you want to escape from religious discipline because it condems behaviour patterns you wish to indulge in or have indulged in or have recommended and assisted others to indulge in or wish to indulge in. The coalition against religion, which I have deliniated all down these threads, has something to gain from these behaviour patterns increasing. All of which is a very complex matter and cannot be dealt with one point at a time because every point impinges on all the other points.
You are attacking Christianity.
You kid yourself if you think I'm in a minority on the basis that there's a handful of you against me.
What do you propose instead of crosses over each war grave? Every war memorial in England that I have seen is topped by a cross.
You discuss those points and we'll see where it goes. Never mind about me being a pissed-up stupid old masturbating fartbox.
I don't pretend to have literary skills. That's spendius's pretense. Thanks for the abuse, though! Maybe one of these days you'll get around to having an on-topic discussion.
I have no pretense. Asserting that I do is just drivel. I write to amuse myself first and hope that a few might be amused by it. You can't amuse everybody.
And what exactly is "on topic"? Being on A2K is THE topic. Like being in the pub is THE topic. If you started that "on topic" stuff in the pub nobody would talk to you. The main topic is the opposite sex at bottom. It's the core issue of the evolution argument and anybody who doesn't know that doesn't understand why the argument has lasted so long and been so fiercely debated. Even the Victorian era didn't blanch at picturing Darwin in some blatantly sexual poses in cartoons.
Do you really think if the argument was asexual it would cause the amount of controversy it does? That's why it is stupid to start sarcastically banging on about gravity or photosynthesis being dealt with in the same way as evolution. That's not clever. It's not even an argument.
If people are scared of the sexual implications of evolution theory they are entitled to their view but denying they are real is just cheating. They are hung up--that's all.
And they are ridiculous when they try to deny that the theory, when accepted by everybody, which must be their objective if they are honest, represents a tectonic shift in culture of momentous proportions.
That's ego mania. Ploughing one's narrow furrow for selfish reasons without bothering about the cultural results. We are close enough to evolution theory in action as it is without going the whole hog unless a war of survival is underway.
A tree is at war for the scarce resources of light, moisture and nutrient with every other organism. Which makes it a nasty piece of work. How can it be "beautiful"? Music is beautiful.
And you conveniently assume that every reader will read posts in the same way you do. And they won't. Some will pick up on a point or a reference and look into it. Some will read them carefully rather than just scanning them quickly looking for some springboard to launch invective from. If my enthusiasm for certain writers has sparked an interest somewhere isn't that a good thing? If it hasn't sparked any interest for you does that mean it doesn't do elsewhere. And even moreso for an interest in literature generally.
Evolution theory works in literature too. The big names have been selected in. And The Bible is top of the list. If some people use it wrongly take it up with them. The fossils in the library are of much more use to people than the fossils in museums. They are alive with the writer's world. Jumping. A bone is just a bone.
and show some commitment to good will.
and some drunk keeps coming in sputtering nonsense, licking your food, and occasionally sarcastically implying that other people are stupid.
I've never seen a single person like that.
Or maybe you just have strange ideas about what the sexual implications are.
If you want to turn this into a big Appeal to Consequences.
The title of the thread was to get the discussion going. It has 250,000 views.
What do you want--a decision. Science or religion. End of thread. A vote. It is not that simple.
Evolution does not supply an answer to the ignorance God fills for most people. Even Darwin admitted that. The Stoic or Existentialist maybe.
Scientific ideas?
That shows how little you have read the thread. I have banged on about social consequences from the beginning, 170,000 posts ago.
It's amazing how often I am accused of being off topic and such things and how rarely I accuse others, if at all, of either.
I'll gladly do so without referencing the Mona Lisa.
How could sex be crippling to "their" position? You have a lot of grand claims but you always fail to back them up.
The Dover case is obviously relevant because a *conservative* Christian Judge went through it,
What you don't seem to realise Shira is that everybody you meet is a complete, fucked-up idiot from an evolutionary point of view. I'm just an extreme example.
Vampires at least make sense scientifically. That's why they are popular subjects in movies and romantic novels. They are the psychological equivalent of toilet jokes. Competence jokes we leave to Mr Neilson, Mr Bridges and Mr Allen.
What was "it"? They went through what they could handle going through.
It wasn't what the Texas senator referred to as the "contoversial issues" and that's for sure. And he had been elected.
I see no reason that anything is stupid or intelligent from an "evolutionary point of view".
That sounds like it has nothing to do with the subject at hand
Shirakawasuna wrote:
I see no reason that anything is stupid or intelligent from an "evolutionary point of view".
Neither do I. The EV. pov says that things just happen without reason or purpose and without reference to language.
All I said was that from that point of view there's a lot of funny stuff going down the sole function of which is to countermand it.
I couldn't imagine anybody in the Dover court room from the judge to the sweeper up who has ever had a pure evolutionary thought apart from when they were babies. On either side.
At least the Christian side could justify, say, monogamy.
The EV pov can't unless it moves into social evolution and then human beings come to the fore and not blood clotting cascades in some sea creature.
The case was incoherent. They never discussed human behaviour and yet they were citing human institutions like the Constitution and happenings in the biological sphere in animals. And in relation to the human institution of formal education.
The law itself is anti-evolution. Pro evolutionists citing the Constitution is a joke from an intellectual point of view. Discuss that.
As you claim to speak for the EV pov will you orient us on the correct position to take on the bared breast at the Superbowl, the stains on Monica's frock, Mr Spitzer's R&R, price gouging, porn and the Madoff case. We are eager to know because we are all mixed up on these matters.
I suppose that it is possible Dover was all a charade set up by some movers and shakers to skim booty out of the taxpayers.
That would be an evolutionary thought.
Compared to some conspiracy theories I have heard it would be tame. I don't see how a scientific mind can dismiss that possibility.
We do know that the case was provoked. Somebody decided to read out the disputed paragraphs to biology students. It isn't even unlikely that they hadn't thought there would be a reaction. And we know money was moved from one place to another.
Is it too much to ask Shira that you try to stop using words like literary pretenses, general inanity and bunkum. It is most unscientific. It weakens your position I'm afraid.
Why can't you miss out "sounds like it". The phrase represents loss of nerve.
I could offer a hypothesis on why Vampire movies are popular and the popularity of them being evidence for it. Bodice rippers generally too. Damsels in distress are one thing but damsels in distress movies are quite another.
Do you think that the functioning of cells in the body is affected by emotional states?
You gave a bit of a whine in response, but you didn't answer my question. "How could sex be crippling to "their" position? You have a lot of grand claims but you always fail to back them up."
The case and/or Intelligent Design. I wasn't really specific enough, the primary point was that even a conservative, Christian Judge found it to be ridiculous when he looked at it closely.
I'm assuming by 'they' you mean Judge Jones.
It wasn't a particularly intelligent deviation.
