Should evolution be taught in high school?

[cruzc]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
You said it right there! You just stick with your, uhhh "imagination" champ. We'll stick to the facts, and when you need a little help with cancer, an infection, etc. you'll be glad we did.

With similar hilarity, I must inform you that cancer treatments etc. are NOT dependent upon a belief in "monkeyism". ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!thought I'd do that cuz ya obviously like it).

I'll stick to my imagination, which is dependent upon real facts, ok? You just stick with your, uh ...."facts" ...er...."champ".

Btw, congratulations on your winning the Gorilla heavy-weight banana eating title! Well done!:)

P.S. I pity the poor wittle evolutionist, living in a drab, dreary world of apeism.

[cruzc]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
So CC, are you going to claim that "a moon made of green cheese is NOT a moon made of green cheese"?
What you have not figured out, CC, is that the truth, falsity, or existence of "a moon made of green cheese" has nothing to do with the truth of the tautology of "a moon made of green cheese is a moon made of green cheese".
You even pointed out that a tautology was always true, as if this was some deep, astounding principle. I have been trying to get you to understand that a tautology is trivially true. That it imparts no knowledge at all.
That you fail to grasp this is quite baffling to me, and I suppose is yet another example of fundamentalist hard-headedness.

Oh dear! Are you mentally-challenged? Has it not penetrated your cranium yet that I shall not be diverted by your insane propositions that have absolutely zero, zilch, nada, zip and NOTHING to do with the point in question?

Now, as for my claims, old DS, they are seen quite clearly in that long, long thread. Remember that thread that you and others massively elongated due to evolutionist, diversionary insanities, as it were?

Now, you were soundly defeated there (along with all the other "geniuses"), so take my advice and seek to be fostered out to a nice Christian family.:)

[hexene]

cruzc wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh dear! Are you mentally-challenged? Has it not penetrated your cranium yet that I shall not be diverted by your insane propositions that have absolutely zero, zilch, nada, zip and NOTHING to do with the point in question?
Now, as for my claims, old DS, they are seen quite clearly in that long, long thread. Remember that thread that you and others massively elongated due to evolutionist, diversionary insanities, as it were?
Now, you were soundly defeated there (along with all the other "geniuses"), so take my advice and seek to be fostered out to a nice Christian family.:)

CC you are one dumb creationist.

[Real]

cruzc wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh dear! Are you mentally-challenged? Has it not penetrated your cranium yet that I shall not be diverted by your insane propositions that have absolutely zero, zilch, nada, zip and NOTHING to do with the point in question?
Now, as for my claims, old DS, they are seen quite clearly in that long, long thread. Remember that thread that you and others massively elongated due to evolutionist, diversionary insanities, as it were?
Now, you were soundly defeated there (along with all the other "geniuses"), so take my advice and seek to be fostered out to a nice Christian family.:)

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOLololOLOLOL!:):) :):): and all that crap you always write. Silly little sheep, scurry on and let others do the thinking for you, your pal wayne and bonner are waiting for you in the grass field. Look out for the fox tails, they are obviously sinking deeper into your brain :) LOLOL ROFLLL!!!11!:)))))

[cruzc]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
CC you are one dumb creationist.

Hexene, what a pretty girl's name!

Hexie sweetie, you are an attention seeking peon. It appears, yet again, that you want me. I told you already, many times, I have a girlfriend already! So, quit stalking me and confessing your love, ok?

[cruzc]

Real wrote:

<quoted text>
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOLololOLOLOL!:):) :):): and all that crap you always write. Silly little sheep, scurry on and let others do the thinking for you, your pal wayne and bonner are waiting for you in the grass field. Look out for the fox tails, they are obviously sinking deeper into your brain :) LOLOL ROFLLL!!!11!:)))))

Hmmmn... that was interesting. The proof that a belief in evolutionism rots ones brain is mounting.

Permit me to descend to your level so you may possibly understand. You are an unmitigated imbecile! LOLOL ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! looooooooooooooooooooooooooooo l hahahaha :):):) ;)

[Real]

cruzc wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmn... that was interesting. The proof that a belief in evolutionism rots ones brain is mounting.
Permit me to descend to your level so you may possibly understand. You are an unmitigated imbecile! LOLOL ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! looooooooooooooooooooooooooooo l hahahaha :):):) ;)

How cute, a sheep tried to make a funny, lolololololololol :):):):))) You're munching the wrong type of grass there sheeple, you're supposed to eat barley, corn, and oats... oh well, no one said sheep where very clever. Oh and in case you don't understand what I wrote, "Permit me to descend to your level"

Baahh! baaah! bah bah bah! LOLOLOLlol!11!!:)))):): ;) ROFLTKAH!!!!!!!!!!

[hexene]

cruzc wrote:

<quoted text>
Hexene, what a pretty girl's name!
Hexie sweetie, you are an attention seeking peon. It appears, yet again, that you want me. I told you already, many times, I have a girlfriend already! So, quit stalking me and confessing your love, ok?

Crucie you are lost as the sheep.....Chemistry is not your forte nor any of the sciences.

I can't help it that you you are dating a sheep in Australia. Creampuff.

[LWsciencejunkie]

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
CC you are one dumb creationist.

No one has quite the exquisite knack of just the right words at just the right moment as you do, sensei. You win, again, hands-down...and with understated direct simplicity. I laughed myself sick. SmoooOOOOOOoooTch!

[Darwins Stepchild]

cruzc wrote:

<quoted text>
With similar hilarity, I must inform you that cancer treatments etc. are NOT dependent upon a belief in "monkeyism". ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!thought I'd do that cuz ya obviously like it).
I'll stick to my imagination, which is dependent upon real facts, ok? You just stick with your, uh ...."facts" ...er...."champ".
Btw, congratulations on your winning the Gorilla heavy-weight banana eating title! Well done!:)
P.S. I pity the poor wittle evolutionist, living in a drab, dreary world of apeism.

CC is a composite person. He takes the worst of Wayne and combines it with the worst of "Doc" O...not that either of those two have many good properties.

CC is insulting, boorish, ignorant, and narcissistic.

[Darwins Stepchild]

cruzc wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh dear! Are you mentally-challenged? Has it not penetrated your cranium yet that I shall not be diverted by your insane propositions that have absolutely zero, zilch, nada, zip and NOTHING to do with the point in question?
Now, as for my claims, old DS, they are seen quite clearly in that long, long thread. Remember that thread that you and others massively elongated due to evolutionist, diversionary insanities, as it were?
Now, you were soundly defeated there (along with all the other "geniuses"), so take my advice and seek to be fostered out to a nice Christian family.:)

It has every relevance. That paper you posted...numerous times...was based in large part on a logical tautology, that A is A. Until you understand that this imparts not one teeny bit of information, you will never see how trite that article was.

"A is A" is logically true no matter what statement A is. "a dog with wings is a dog with wings" is just as logically true as "An eagle with wings is an eagle with wings."

You really need to learn some formal logic. But, of course, that would involve learning some critical thinking. And THAT might lead you to thinking critically about your religion. We can't have that, can we?

[The_Captain]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
HA! Where've you been mon capitain?
Sometimes I almost envy these stream-of-consciousness-if-I-s aid-it's-true-it-is types. Free self-esteem. Never any shame; no such thing as being confronted by the facts. Hell, no such thing as a "fact". Anything goes...yeeeee-ha!

I've been work'n my butt off! I've barely had time to even keep up reading all the post around here let alone jump in for any length of time. And even when I do, most days I'd rather be off playing with motorcycles, watching bands, leaving town, or playing with girls, rather than sitting in front of a computer like I do most days at work. Hell It's spring, and I feel the need to run outside for a while I guess. Got to mix it up somehow. But I heard this definition of "Fractal wrongness" the other day on a podcast and it immediately reminded me of Allen (and a few other people around here).

"fractal wrongness
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

[Roku Roku Roku]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
Shouldn't you be getting back to your sandbox?

I'm sorry you conceded on your worldwide flood claim. Maybe given more time you can find some supporting scientific evidence instead of a just a website with highly subjective and speculative claims. I was looking forward to actually seeing the scientific evidence of the flood. Feel free anytime you find evidence to post it. I'll be around.

[ZekeCDN]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

The worst and most dangerous myth that was disastrously reinforced by the RCC scandal is that pedophilia is primarily perpetrated by gay men. The fact is that the vast majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated against girls.

I don't know a lot about the subject, but this is consistent with everything I do know. In law school we spent a considerable amount of time in various classes (criminal, family, public, etc) on cases like these and it was hands down the most difficult material we had to deal with. The number of girls (I know I should probably say women, but many of them were barely half my age!) who would excuse themselves from class when certain cases came up was very telling. At first I thought they were just being squeamish, but I later found out that for many of them the facts of the cases were cutting too close to home.

The reason I tend to give particular hell to fundies that focus on the "evils of homosexuality" is because I have a gay younger brother that I still feel quite protective towards. I've seen first hand what he's gone through and it just makes me sick that these folks could think this is something young people do as a lark--i.e. that it's a matter of choice. Also I remain convinced that a lot of them (who knows, perhaps our current poster is one) are closet cases who need to continually recite the evils of the "lifestyle" to remind themselves why they are expending so much effort denying their orientation).

[ZekeCDN]

The_Captain wrote:

"fractal wrongness
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

I love that--thanks for posting it!

[huhuhuhu]

www.evitamino.com ::)
for chlidren :))

[TerryBond]

The_Captain wrote:

<quoted text>
I've been work'n my butt off! I've barely had time to even keep up reading all the post around here let alone jump in for any length of time. And even when I do, most days I'd rather be off playing with motorcycles, watching bands, leaving town, or playing with girls, rather than sitting in front of a computer like I do most days at work. Hell It's spring, and I feel the need to run outside for a while I guess. Got to mix it up somehow. But I heard this definition of "Fractal wrongness" the other day on a podcast and it immediately reminded me of Allen (and a few other people around here).
"fractal wrongness
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

I love your definition of "fractal wrongness"! That definitely describes closed-minded fundamentalists thinking.

[Darwins Stepchild]

The_Captain wrote:

<quoted text>
I've been work'n my butt off! I've barely had time to even keep up reading all the post around here let alone jump in for any length of time. And even when I do, most days I'd rather be off playing with motorcycles, watching bands, leaving town, or playing with girls, rather than sitting in front of a computer like I do most days at work. Hell It's spring, and I feel the need to run outside for a while I guess. Got to mix it up somehow. But I heard this definition of "Fractal wrongness" the other day on a podcast and it immediately reminded me of Allen (and a few other people around here).
"fractal wrongness
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time."

That is pretty close to what I thought was meant..."wrong at every level".

[Katydid]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll read tour articles as I get time. I presume the correlation rates of these articles that you've cited exceed 1.4%? That means that these alleged 'bio-chemical' factors also create the violence, promiscuity, depression, and suicide tendencies chronicled by the social scientists.
Here's some references for you: "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population." And:“AT THE END OF THE RAINBOW: A Report on Gay Male Domestic Violence and Abuse”, By Mark Lehman.
And, lest I forget, the recent lesbian 'tantrum' at Smith College protesting Author Ryan Sorba's book,'The born gay Hoax'-
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/bo...

So what does any of this have to do with refuting that sexual orientation has a biological etiology and not a socialization etiology? You have provided nothing here to counter a biological etiology.

[tomk52]

Allen wrote:

<quoted text>
This is another great example of an activist 'robed monarchy' deciding what's best for the people of California. It's pure despotism, NOT an 'equal access' issue, under the 14th amendment.
"Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," ..passed with 61 percent of the vote. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationw...
When ONE court overturns the will of 61% of California voters, that's neither self-government nor democracy. You can bet, Californians will now be pushing for a Constitutional amendment.

Allen,

Yep, and it was the will of 90% of the citizens of Mississippi that black people not be allowed to vote at one time.

Oooops, sorry, that was wrong. It was the will of 90% of the VOTERS of Mississippi that black people not be allowed to vote. Because, after all, black people weren't allowed to vote and their opinions weren't be counted.

And those damn pesky guys in black robes had to butt their damn liberal noses in, and look at all the trouble THEY have caused ever since.

Sorry, dickwad. The courts are specifically doing their appointed job when they prevent the majority from bullying the minorities.

Go throw a temper tantrum about it. The rest of us are moving on to the 21st century.

c'ya (in the rear view mirror),

tk