65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 06:37 pm
@rosborne979,
ros, Do you have any credible sources that supports that fact?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2011 07:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There's a whole thread on this from a while back...
http://able2know.org/topic/162037-1
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 03:55 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Not that that has anything to do with evolution, because atheism and evolution are not related.


Bullshit . . . ever'body knows all them evolutionists is godless commies . . .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 04:17 am
@Setanta,
an if it werent fer the damn CAtholic Church we wouldnt have pizza.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 04:18 am
Evolution and no pizza . . . the mind boggles . . .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 04:19 am
@Setanta,
We owe so much
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 05:07 am
@Setanta,
Darwin spent a lot of time denying he was an atheist. Too much really. He overdid it imo.

But he was certainly no commie. As a magistrate he was an upholder of the various laws of the time including child labour laws from which he derived many benefits, fantastic inequalites of income and mortality rates, Victorian sexual values, capital punishment (including torture) in public, imperialism, use of animals in gruesome scientific experiments and no votes for women.

Quote:
After Darwin's death, Emma felt obliged to refuse Cobbe permission to reprint the magistrates' correspondence in her Autobiography.


Here's a 4 minute video for your applause brought to us by The Grauniad, the house mag of the feminists and of bureaucratic expansion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2009/jan/30/david-attenborough.

The first time I viewed it the ad at the start was for Estelle Lauder skin treatment for ladies of a certain age (sex again ci.). The second time was a promotion of Dubai using actors between the ages of about 21 and 30 whose parents are obviously bankers.

What was really funny was Attenborough's blaming our domination over nature on the book of Genesis. Science was absolved from responsibility. His flying around the world with high-tech production units was all the fault of Genesis. Nice study he had too.

What a ******* idiot eh?

Our adult comic VIZ reckons he does it all in a studio in Bristol using tricksy photography.

He looked as if he was trying the shag "the biggest flower in the world".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 05:19 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We owe so much


For once fm we are in agreement although your lack of emphasis is unjust.

We owe everything including many aspects of our biology and sexual technique on which so much of the GNP is expended.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 07:48 am
@spendius,
are you shooting up again?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 08:13 am
@farmerman,
The authentic ladylike response to tweets on the vanity.

Quote:
The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000.
Ecclesiastes
OR, THE PREACHER
1

All Is Vanity
1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.


Foundational scientific logic. On Ignore of course.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 08:35 am
@spendius,
Quote:
"The most disgusting cant permeates everything. Except for the representation of savage and violent sentiments, everything is stifled by it." — Stendhal, De l'Amour.


Quote:
"A nation given over to the worship of women has not even the energy which would enable it to grasp that there are patriots in the world." — Napoleon. (From Napoleon and his Women Friends, by Gertrude Aretz.)


Quote:
Now there is an instinctive inclination in every reader to identify himself with the picture of humanity presented to him in the book that he happens to be perusing, whether it be a novel or a scientific treatise. Naturally enough, therefore, he is exposed to the severest shocks if at every turn he is prevented from idealizing his own nature, or from thinking too well of it, owing to the fact that the picture he is contemplating is too humiliating to be pleasant, and yet too convincing to be lightly rejected.
The bulk of modern readers, however, are women. This fact, too well known to editors and publishers, is quite inadequately understood from the standpoint of its influence on taste and quality in literary production. For not only do women reveal the trait common to all readers, which consists in a tendency to identify themselves with one of the characters of a novel, or with the portrait of humanity presented in a scientific treatise, but they are also addicted to the practice of confounding that which is pleasant to themselves with that which is true. Thus in the woman reader there is a twofold tendency to tolerate or to applaud cant; for, on the one hand, she views truth hedonistically, and, on the other, she feels deep discomfiture, either when she finds herself unable, through her false idealization of herself and her motives, to identify herself with the anti cant portrayal of a certain heroine (Stendhal's Félicie Féline, for instance), or, when she finds her reading of human nature, which is based upon her idealized reading of herself, affronted by a picture of humanity which shatters her rosy view.
To the influence of women in this connexion, however, ought in all fairness to be added that of a vast number of men, who, in these days, whether from the same hedonistic view of truth, or prompted by a certain
poltroonery and vanity in the face of reality, tend to shrink ever more and more from any understanding of human relations and the passions that govern them, which would distort their comfortable and comforting assumptions concerning both. If, however, they actually form, together with the women, a force sufficiently powerful to govern the taste of the day, especially in the world of literature and in that department of it which treats of human psychology, we may well feel some anxiety concerning the real worth of that literature. If Byron and Stendhal could honestly complain of cant even in their time, what can be our position to-day?


Woman. A Vindication by Anthony M. Ludovici.

Ignore function explained. The true misogynist revealed in its evolutionary degenerate glory.

Quote:
"America has a debt problem"- Barack Obama

It is the ending sentence though that should bother most people:

He [Obama] also "faces a looming battle over increasing the country's official debt ceiling, so that the government can continue to borrow to finance the deficit."


I heard on CBS that the "ceiling" is to be raised in order to snow over the degeneracy and screw our darling little children still further.

All three of these writers, if not formally, are effictively censored.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 08:40 am
@spendius,
To formally censor them would be counterproductive because it would draw attention to them.

There are sneakier ways.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 08:51 am
@spendius,
Evolution is powered by sexual passion as can be seen from the antics of animal courtship.

Modern society is powered by vanity. The passion is simulated to flatter the vanities. Media providing the models to be mimed.

The two are opposites.

What has evolution got to do with us? You lot have evolution on Ignore actually. The Intelligent Ladies' Guide to Evolution is what you are trying to write.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 08:59 am
@spendius,
As it is the day of rest, brought to us by Christianity, I thought I would try a few speculations on the Texas Senator's "controversial issues" which he was unfortunately inhibited from elaborating.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 09:01 am
@spendius,
I wondered at the time wande quoted the Senator's phrase, so pregnant with possibilities, whether his wife had furrowed her brow at him going even that far.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 10:50 am
@spendius,
Sunday rest is not only based on christianity. All your readings about religions have failed you! LOL
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 11:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Examples:

* "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
* "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."


Try to get it ci. Do yourself a favour.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 11:25 am
@spendius,
Oh, but I do! I don't resort to ad hominems without having explained why the poster's claims or comments are wrong or one without facts and evidence.

I try to provide the basis for why I disagree with a poster's comment or opinion, and when that fails to get a direct response - on topic - then I use ad hominems to show they deserve the abuse or personal attack.

They are not without cause. Show me any case where I have used ad hominems where the poster did not deserve it, and don't take my posts out of context, because that's the only way you'll find any.

Many of the people I attack are those who provide no relevant comment to the topic under discussion, and only attack with ad hominems.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 12:01 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Not that that has anything to do with evolution, because atheism and evolution are not related.

That has to be the official legal position of science advocates in America. Understandably, they don't want to help creationist lawyers paint the teaching of evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of irreligion. But for whatever it's worth, it hasn't been true of my own intellectual development. Neo-Darwinian evolution and modern cosmology have definitely made it easier for me to become an intellectually satisfied nonbeliever. At least one noteworthy science advocate shares my experience, and I'm pretty sure a good number of other people do, too.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 01:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Sunday rest is not only based on christianity. All your readings about religions have failed you! LOL


It is ridiculous for the so-called Christian nation to allow stores to be open on Sunday.

This is Palm Sunday. Next Sunday is Easter. A coworker at the liquor store just called to ask whether I could take his hours. His family is in CA but he would like to spend Easter with his girlfriend and her family.

While Sunday shopping provides some employment for people stuck in this low paying service economy, it is a shame for stores to be open to serve the disorganized.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 02:24:29