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

And I suppose you think those are uncaused effects which will not in their turn cause further effects.

In 1964 it was 10%.

fm meant the five-fingered widow.

Right then. Explain the following--

1 Lingerie.

2 Sex toys and aids. Censorship.

3 Abolition of mating seasons.

4 Sexual fantasy.

5 Forward planning by government.

6 Artificial birth control.

7 Induced abortion.

8 Fashion industries.

9 Candlelit dinners for two.

10 Sex as the principle theme in almost every movie, song, magazine, play and novel.



Most ambition relates to sex. Study, work, lifestyle etc are, in the main, connected to sexual display. And Hefner has been a major opinion former with his cute little body fascist bunnies. A trail blazer. And fools rushed in where angels fear to tread.

People even dream about sex.

Birds and bees produce new offspring every year.

So don't tell anybody there's proof of evolution because we are not ready for that. From an evolutionary point of view it's out of the question. Dawkins, Attenborough etc are not typical people. They are dissidents.

spendi, You're the dissident; your view of the world lacks the necessary intellect to decipher and understand what life is all about. Sex does not take over ones life 24/7; although it may for you! Even when we have children, we do not spend all of our time with family or partner.

spendi, Are you into child porn?

Spendiosus is either a true married Catha - holic with a wife and 20 kids, or a single true Catha - holic who's sticks by his faith... never had sex Of any kind - or way and can't stop writing about his sexual voyeurisms .

I have to stick up for spendi - he has a rich and varied sex life, sadly it never involves another human being.

Are you into child porn ci.? The subject must be near the top of your head for you to ask me such a question. May I refer you to my contributions to the Trivia forums. I'm an open book on those threads to any reasonably educated person.

I cannot for the life of me understand what anybody sees in innocence from a sexual point of view. Or what anybody sees in the same sex. I can only assume a morbid fear is operating of what Henry Miller called "a woman without the slightest spark of decency".

You must have missed my defence of Tiger Woods and Eliot Spitzer. One's attitude to events like those reveal the true nature of one's sexual predilictions.

The only thing I know about what life is all about is that it is about 80 years in length. If anybody knows more I would be glad to hear what it is. I notice you don't elaborate on the matter. If you are going to suggest that you have the necessary intellect to understand what life is all about, as you do in your reverse invidious comparison, share it with us. Able us to know. I'm all ears.

What can I do about posters revealing that they are hung up all to ****.

Alas hinge it sadly involved all too many.

You have to laugh. The permissive society is more puritannical than ever the Victorians were.

BTW hinge--how do you define "involving another human being" in the light of psychological research into sexual fantasies?

"I couldn't tell her what my private thoughts were
But she had someway of finding them out."

Bob Dylan. Where Are You Tonight aka Journey Through Dark Heat.

That's involving another human being.

You should realise ci., and others too here, that a lot of the things you say about me assume a uniformity in the readership of A2K and that that uniformity is assumed to be agreeable to the majority if not all.

Uniformity undermines the evolutionary process which is conditioned by diversity. As you assume that uniformity, you display a complete ignorance of evolution and from that obvious conclusion one might easily charge you with using evolution, and by extension, science, as a paddle to bring your boat to shore. Which is also anti-science.

Uniformity also leads to totalitarianism and can only be justified if totalitarianism is a positive adaptation. Which is anti-democratic.

It is also "safe" which some would argue is a function of gutlessness as well as having nothing to do with being Abled 2 Know. I bet a few thumbs up gives your little ego a frisson of joy.

Your only knowledge of the diversity consists in the what, the when and the where of it and has on Ignore the how, the whence, the why and the wherefore. The what, the when, and the where are merely a function of occupational directedness and emphasis upon those is a claim that the occupational directedness is superior in some way. Hence the dressing up of it in brilliantine words such as anthropogenic instead of man-made. Which is anti-economic.

It's as if the sidewalk, to you, is just a series of neatly laid out and levelled paving flags and it is just there, now and in your street. That it was called forth to prevent ladies dresses getting muddy would never enter the head of someone bringing the same approach to it as you do to evolution.

I imagine you think it silly to not consider the how, the whence, the why and the wherefore of the sidewalk but it is just as silly as not to consider those important aspects with regard to evolution. And with regard to Christianity.

The conclusions, teleologised into existence as a preening strategy, of having been directed to study the diversity, being above it so to say, have no validity with respect to the how, the whence, the why and the wherefore. To deploy them as if they do is off topic, ignorant and flat-out trolling.

And when habituated and promoted can only aim to create a world of whats, whens and wheres. It is thus anti-educational. An attempt to get everybody down into the hole you're in.

But I have to admit that you're winning. I can't deny that.

I read that a large proportion of US urban children think that steak comes from the display cabinet in the shops. And milk. They must only do the what, the when and, when a little older, the wherefore.

You're training them pretty good if what I read is true. If you did the how, the whence, the why and the wherefore on the steak it might freak them all out. Especially with critical analysis being brought to bear on such a complex matter.

You're having yourself on ci.

I do not believe that he said at any point there was no god

The only uniformity I have observed is that you are questioned on your posts more than me. There must be a fundamental reason for that! I'll give you one guess.

spendi wrote,

That is factually correct. It does come from "display cabinet in the shops."

What I have observed in the UK are meats hanging on hooks outside of the shops. Where do English children believe steaks come from?

I don't know. I have only seen surveys on American children.

Just imagine what the kids thought back in the day when heads were hung from London Bridge.

I understand Anne Boleyn's had came off from the chopping block like those steaks in England.

"I am fed up with ignoramuses doubting evolution. DO YOUR RESEARCH DAMMIT."

I find it humous that you place "do your research dammit" in all caps. If you had done even the slightest bit of research at all you would know that there are no absolute truths, so you don't KNOW anything, you only THINK you know it. My intuition tell me that based on how you presented this post, you only based your "facts" on the research and perceptions of others. If that's the case, then how do you know they were right? If they have proof (which I'll assume they do), then what is that proof based on? Based on how you've constructed this you look very arrogant, immature, and ignorant.

I think Tim Minchin said it best