Really, what's so bad about it?

[prawnster]

What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
college, and then only as an elective?

I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
and Darwinists. Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
for evolution. People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
division college classes.

And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam. I understand biology just fine
without accepting a single Darwinist premise. Also, as I have
demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.

So really, what would you lose, Darwinists? I would never mandate
that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
all the way until their assisted suicide.

Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
evolution.

[wiki trix]

It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.

[RAM]

Your ideology and stupidity should not be educational goals.

HTH

[prawnster]

On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.

How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
that? That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.

I would claim that knowledge of, and especially belief in, evolution
creates a lot of negative feelings without being balanced at all by
anything good. Sensitive, smart people who learn about evolution and
discover how evolutionarily unfit they are -- e.g., they're ugly,
sickly, clumsy, or lacking in charisma -- can be emotionally damaged
unless they reject Darwinism and accept a faith that tells them their
life has eternal significance, regardless of how undesirable they are
to other homo sapiens.

So again, why should anyone be forced by a government to study the
spiritual malware called evolution? Really, why is it so important to
you, Darwinists, that people earning only a high school diploma be
forced to learn such a potentially damaging philosophy?

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 2:25:44 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?

Because you probably want to go to a doctor
who speaks English. And is a doctor. And
because you don't get to have taxpayers pay
for your children's religious indoctrination.
The country needs scientists and it needs
scientifically literate citizens.

Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
available to citizens who don't understand
evolution, because that would be dangerous.
As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
defeat Communism.

How about doing it this way: except when
specially requested by parents, or other
legal guardian, children cannot attend a
public school. But wait, isn't that what
we've got? Except for you having children.

[Harry K]

Because it is part and parcel of a well-rounded education. Without
it, we wouild be turning out students with a false understanding of
biology...like you.

Of coruse the current system still allows people like you to get
through the system and stillb e stupid so...

Harry K

[prawnster]

On May 11, 7:49 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
> available to citizens who don't understand
> evolution, because that would be dangerous.
> As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
> fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
> defeat Communism.
>

That the DNA/RNA of bacteria and viruses mutate has been demonstrated
repeatedly.

And what do mutated bacteria and viruses produce? Oh, yeah, that's
right: more bacteria and viruses. Let me know when they mutate into a
finch, tiktalik, or chimp.

So you made no point, sir. And you need to stop taking science
lessons from Doonesbury comic strips.

-----
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know, assuming
their parents are chimps." -- prawndaddy

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?

What's so bad about legilsating that, except when specially requested by
parents, algebra shall not be taught until college, and then only as an
elective? Think of the Pythagoreans out there.

>
> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists. Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution.

Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use for algebra. Just as
they predicted during the high school math classes they suffered through.

> People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.

People who imagine they must understand algebra, say students getting a
bachelor's degree in mathematics, can study it in upper-division college

classes.

> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam.

Ooh! What did you get on your SATs? Anyone can play a high-school
overachiever in cyberspace.

> I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise.

This is certainly possible. No one in biology class asks you to "accept"
anything. They just ask you to understand things.

> Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.

Certainly. Just define "designed" as a metaphorical term for "evolved,"
and FSM as a funny name for the theory of evolution. But why would you
dod that?

> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists? I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
> your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
> all the way until their assisted suicide.

That's mighty white of you. Do you have any authority to mandate
anything?

> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

Please tell me why it's so important that people possessing no education
beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn algebra.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.
>
> How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
> that? That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.
>
> I would claim that knowledge of, and especially belief in, evolution
> creates a lot of negative feelings without being balanced at all by
> anything good.

Not nearly as much negative feelings as algebra.

> Sensitive, smart people who learn about evolution and
> discover how evolutionarily unfit they are -- e.g., they're ugly,
> sickly, clumsy, or lacking in charisma -- can be emotionally damaged
> unless they reject Darwinism and accept a faith that tells them their
> life has eternal significance, regardless of how undesirable they are
> to other homo sapiens.

Is that what happened to you? In spite of your AP scores, you were
scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma? So because you
were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
something you all "Darwinism"?

> So again, why should anyone be forced by a government to study the
> spiritual malware called evolution? Really, why is it so important to
> you, Darwinists, that people earning only a high school diploma be
> forced to learn such a potentially damaging philosophy?

No one teaches biology as a personal philosophy. So you can rest easy.

[prawnster]

On May 11, 9:22 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's so bad about legilsating that, except when specially requested by
> parents, algebra shall not be taught until college, and then only as an
> elective?  Think of the Pythagoreans out there.
>

> Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use for algebra.  Just as
> they predicted during the high school math classes they suffered through.
>

> People who imagine they must understand algebra, say students getting a
> bachelor's degree in mathematics, can study it in upper-division college
> classes.
>

> Ooh!  What did you get on your SATs?  Anyone can play a high-school
> overachiever in cyberspace.
>

> This is certainly possible.  No one in biology class asks you to "accept"
> anything.  They just ask you to understand things.
>

> Certainly.  Just define "designed" as a metaphorical term for "evolved,"
> and FSM as a funny name for the theory of evolution.  But why would you
> dod that?
>

> That's mighty white of you.  Do you have any authority to mandate
> anything?
>

> Please tell me why it's so important that people possessing no education
> beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn algebra.

Sure would be nice if you'd stay on subject, ratman, and tell me why
anyone needs to understand evolution or why any government should
force its citizens to study it.

And as a status whoring Leftist, you certainly do not want to know my
SAT score: the knowledge would provoke in you that all-too-familiar
gnawing, corrosive jealousy you experience when you're in the presence
of someone who, in your mind, doesn't deserve what he has.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 9:22 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What's so bad about legilsating that, except when specially requested by
>> parents, algebra shall not be taught until college, and then only as an
>> elective?  Think of the Pythagoreans out there.
>>
>> Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use for algebra.  Just as
>> they predicted during the high school math classes they suffered through.
>>
>> People who imagine they must understand algebra, say students getting a
>> bachelor's degree in mathematics, can study it in upper-division college
>> classes.
>>
>> Ooh!  What did you get on your SATs?  Anyone can play a high-school
>> overachiever in cyberspace.
>>
>> This is certainly possible.  No one in biology class asks you to "accept"
>> anything.  They just ask you to understand things.
>>
>> Certainly.  Just define "designed" as a metaphorical term for "evolved,"
>> and FSM as a funny name for the theory of evolution.  But why would you
>> dod that?
>>
>> That's mighty white of you.  Do you have any authority to mandate
>> anything?
>>
>> Please tell me why it's so important that people possessing no education
>> beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn algebra.
>
> Sure would be nice if you'd stay on subject, ratman, and tell me why
> anyone needs to understand evolution or why any government should
> force its citizens to study it.

Was the analogy to algebra too difficult for you? I'd have thought someone
with your AP scores wouldn't find it so difficult.

> And as a status whoring Leftist, you certainly do not want to know my
> SAT score: the knowledge would provoke in you that all-too-familiar
> gnawing, corrosive jealousy you experience when you're in the presence
> of someone who, in your mind, doesn't deserve what he has.

No, no. I assure you that I want you to post your SAT scores. I'm enjoying
your making a fool of yourself.

How could you know what's in my mind any more than I could know what you
have?

[prawnster]

On May 11, 9:27 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Is that what happened to you?  In spite of your AP scores, you were
> scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma?  So because you
> were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
> school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
> something you all "Darwinism"?
>

No. Darwinism taught me that, as a genetic loser, my life was without
meaning and I should kill myself. I don't blame Darwinism for
whatever bad feelings I had about being rejected by other people, but
it would have been better for me had I not been raised as an atheo-
Darwinist. I would not have wasted so many years in despair had I
been taught instead that I'm an eternal being and not just a sack of
meat whose ultimate goal, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not,
is to reproduce my apparently defective DNA and then take an unending
dirt nap. That narrative was so uninspiring to me that I preferred
death. And that is the narrative molecules-to-man evolution teaches.
And that's one very good reason no government should force its
citizens to learn it, along with the others I gave above.

[prawnster]

On May 11, 9:56 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Was the analogy to algebra too difficult for you?  I'd have thought someone
> with your AP scores wouldn't find it so difficult.
>

> [...]

> No, no.  I assure you that I want you to post your SAT scores.  I'm enjoying
> your making a fool of yourself.
>
> How could you know what's in my mind any more than I could know what you
> have?

No, your analogy to algebra was just irrelevant, and I'm not wasting
my time talking about algebra.

I know your mind because you interpret my divulging a 4 on the AP
biology test as a form of bragging. If I were bragging, wouldn't I
claim I got a 5, because that's the highest score? I have made my AP
score clear here on usernet because Darwinists always assert that no
one can understand biology unless they accept evolution: I am living,
observable proof that they are wrong. Also, it's interesting that you
think I mention my merely good AP score as a form of bragging. Is
that why you personally would mention a good test score, as a way of
impressing others? You revealed a lot about yourself with that one
unfounded assumption alone.

And that's why you would suffer if you knew my SAT scores: it would
threaten you.

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:04:01 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On May 11, 7:49 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
>> available to citizens who don't understand
>> evolution, because that would be dangerous.
>> As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
>> fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
>> defeat Communism.
>>
>
>That the DNA/RNA of bacteria and viruses mutate has been demonstrated
>repeatedly.
>
>And what do mutated bacteria and viruses produce? Oh, yeah, that's
>right: more bacteria and viruses. Let me know when they mutate into a
>finch, tiktalik, or chimp.
>
>So you made no point, sir. And you need to stop taking science
>lessons from Doonesbury comic strips.

Yet another repetitive big yawn.

[SkyEyes]

So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
spayshul enuff?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[prawnster]

On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Yet another repetitive big yawn.

And when I refer you to my archives, you call me troll.

So what should I do, Jillbaby? Repeat myself like a crank or refer
Mr. Carnegie to my archives instead like a troll?

I have an even better idea: admit that my ideas are better than yours
or quit making the same weaksauce pseudoarguments again and again ad
diarrheum.

[prawnster]

On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> [...]

> So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
> spayshul enuff?
>

Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?
Do you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're
aware of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
evolution in their life?

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:29:58 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Yet another repetitive big yawn.
>
>And when I refer you to my archives, you call me troll.

Would I find any definition of what you think would be evidence of
evolution?

>So what should I do, Jillbaby? Repeat myself like a crank or refer
>Mr. Carnegie to my archives instead like a troll?

ISTM identifying what you think would be evidence of evolution would
be a great start,

>I have an even better idea: admit that my ideas are better than yours
>or quit making the same weaksauce pseudoarguments again and again ad
>diarrheum.

Oopsie poopsie. That would be *your* problem.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 9:27 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Is that what happened to you?  In spite of your AP scores, you were
>> scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma?  So because you
>> were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
>> school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
>> something you all "Darwinism"?
>>
>
> No. Darwinism taught me that, as a genetic loser, my life was without
> meaning and I should kill myself.

How did you know you were a genetic loser? If you live to produce fertile
offspring, then you're not a genetic loser. An intellectual loser, sure.

> I don't blame Darwinism for
> whatever bad feelings I had about being rejected by other people, but
> it would have been better for me had I not been raised as an atheo-
> Darwinist.

The Reformed Church of Atheo-Darwinism? Bwahahahahaha! Stop it! You're
killing me here.

> I would not have wasted so many years in despair had I
> been taught instead that I'm an eternal being and not just a sack of
> meat whose ultimate goal, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not,
> is to reproduce my apparently defective DNA and then take an unending
> dirt nap.

"Many years of despair." Now, *that's* funny. Who taught you all this? It
can't be Darwinists. There aren't any of those anymore. Probably haven't
been in almost 100 years. Sure, there used to be, when the theory of
evolution hadn't become established as science. There used to be atomists,
too, scientists who didn't believe in the existence of atoms and thought they
were merely convenient crutches for making computations. Einstein pretty
much put an end to them. Now there are just physicists. With the Darwinists
gone, there are just biologists. And *atheo-*Darwinists? Science doesn't
tell us whether there is a god; science just isn't powerful enough to do
that. So just who was it that taught you this crap?

> That narrative was so uninspiring to me that I preferred death.

Gee, just 'cause the cool kids made fun of you, and the cheerleaders wouldn't
give you the time of day? Seems a little drastic.

> And that is the narrative molecules-to-man evolution teaches.

What a shame that you didn't do a little research on your own. You'd have
found out that science can't give you a purpose and can't teach you about the
immanent. You have to find that elsewhere.

> And that's one very good reason no government should force its
> citizens to learn it, along with the others I gave above.

So because you're such a loser, we shouldn't teach children about science?

Well, at least you've found a purpose: you're keeping me entertained.
Either you're serious, and thus an object worthy of ridicule, or you're
indulging in an awesome display of performance art. It's impossible to tell,
of course, since there's nothing so stupid that a creationist hasn't posted
something stupider here in all seriousness.

But don't keep me in suspense. What were your SAT scores?

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 9:56 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Was the analogy to algebra too difficult for you?  I'd have thought someone
>> with your AP scores wouldn't find it so difficult.
>>
>> [...]
>> No, no.  I assure you that I want you to post your SAT scores.  I'm enjoying
>> your making a fool of yourself.
>>
>> How could you know what's in my mind any more than I could know what you
>> have?
>
> No, your analogy to algebra was just irrelevant, and I'm not wasting
> my time talking about algebra.

... he explained. Evasion noted.

>
> I know your mind because you interpret my divulging a 4 on the AP
> biology test as a form of bragging. If I were bragging, wouldn't I
> claim I got a 5, because that's the highest score?

You can't "know" my mind any more than I can know yours. Were you bragging by
bringing up you AP scores? I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. I just find
it hysterically funny that you thought it was somehow relevant. Why didn't you
claim a 5? How would I know? Perhaps you thought a 4 was more believable. I
think 4 is actually funnier than 5, but that's just me.

> I have made my AP score clear here on usernet

Not possible. How do we know you even took the test?

> because Darwinists always assert that no
> one can understand biology unless they accept evolution: I am living,
> observable proof that they are wrong.

Bwahahahahahaha! Ehhhh. If you're serious, -- and it's not possible to tell --
then your ignorance is abyssal.

> Also, it's interesting that you
> think I mention my merely good AP score as a form of bragging. Is
> that why you personally would mention a good test score,

Don't drag me into this. I haven't mentioned any scores on any tests I've
taken.

> as a way of
> impressing others? You revealed a lot about yourself with that one
> unfounded assumption alone.

Yeah, I'm just an open book.

> And that's why you would suffer if you knew my SAT scores: it would
> threaten you.

Bwahahahahahahaha! Sonny, I'm decades past caring about SAT scores.

But, c'mon. Don't be shy. Is it still 200-800 per section?

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
>> spayshul enuff?
>>
>
> Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?

Who cares, and how would you know even if she told you?

> Do you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're
> aware of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

How do you know she doesn't have another purpose? After all, you have
another purpose, namely keeping me entertained. I hope you find it
inspiring.

> So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
> to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
> evolution in their life?

Why should they learn algebra?

[prawnster]

On May 11, 11:22 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> What a shame that you didn't do a little research on your own.  You'd have
> found out that science can't give you a purpose and can't teach you about the
> immanent.  You have to find that elsewhere.
>

When a pseudoscience like evolution claims to prove that all life
arose from inanimant matter ex nihilo and without design and, thus,
there is nothing beyond the grave, then it is does purport to teach
people about the immanent.

[prawnster]

On May 11, 11:35 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> You can't "know" my mind any more than I can know yours.  Were you bragging by
> bringing up you AP scores?  I don't know.  It doesn't matter to me.  I just find
> it hysterically funny that you thought it was somehow relevant.  Why didn't you
> claim a 5?  How would I know?  Perhaps you thought a 4 was more believable.  I
> think 4 is actually funnier than 5, but that's just me.
>

"Ooh! What did you get on your SATs? Anyone can play a high-school
overachiever in cyberspace."

I'd say that's pretty strong evidence you thought I was bragging about
getting a 4 on the biology AP test, so you were, in fact, purporting
to "know" my mind. And then you accused me of the very same thing you
did -- I'm sure you well know the name for that common psychological
phenomenon. I'd like to play poker with you some evening, ratman:
you're so transparent, I think I could pocket your every penny before
sunrise.

Admitting I got a 4 out of 5 on a test is hardly playing a high-school
overachiever.

And I do agree that getting a 4 out of 5 and claiming solid knowledge
about the subject is actually funnier than claiming to have earned a
5. But read 'em and weep: I got a 4. If you are a geezer, then you
might not know that's a passing score, as is a 3. Anything below is a
pfail.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 11:22 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> What a shame that you didn't do a little research on your own.  You'd have
>> found out that science can't give you a purpose and can't teach you about the
>> immanent.  You have to find that elsewhere.
>>
>
> When a pseudoscience like evolution claims to prove that all life
> arose from inanimant matter

The word you're looking for is "inanimate."

> ex nihilo and without design and, thus,

thus?

> there is nothing beyond the grave,

Please quote some science text, any science text, that mentions anything "beyond
the grave."

> then it is does purport to teach people about the immanent.

Science specifically declares its inability to consider the immanent. You'll
have to get your spiritual indoctrination elsewhere.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 11:35 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> You can't "know" my mind any more than I can know yours.  Were you bragging
by
>> bringing up you AP scores?  I don't know.  It doesn't matter to me.  I just
find
>> it hysterically funny that you thought it was somehow relevant.  Why didn't
you
>> claim a 5?  How would I know?  Perhaps you thought a 4 was more believable.
 I
>> think 4 is actually funnier than 5, but that's just me.
>>
>
> "Ooh! What did you get on your SATs? Anyone can play a high-school
> overachiever in cyberspace."
>
> I'd say that's pretty strong evidence you thought I was bragging about
> getting a 4 on the biology AP test, so you were, in fact, purporting
> to "know" my mind.

OK, I'll explain. But it really takes all the fun out of things for me. Here
goes: I was making fun of you for 1) thinking that your claims about your test
scores are some kind of evidence for your argument, and 2) telling us how smart
you were to get a 4 out of 5 when you display an abyssal ignorance of basic
science every time you post.

> And then you accused me of the very same thing you did

I haven't accused you of anything. I've just ridiculed you.

> -- I'm sure you well know the name for that common psychological
> phenomenon. I'd like to play poker with you some evening, ratman:
> you're so transparent, I think I could pocket your every penny before
> sunrise.

You think a lot of things. Many of them are ganz falsch.

> Admitting I got a 4 out of 5 on a test is hardly playing a high-school
> overachiever.

Don't go all modest on us now. But what I was doing was making fun of someone
who quotes his test scores to prove how smart he is, when his posts demonstrate
the opposite.

> And I do agree that getting a 4 out of 5 and claiming solid knowledge
> about the subject is actually funnier than claiming to have earned a
> 5. But read 'em and weep: I got a 4.

So you say. Max nixt to me. And to your argument.

> If you are a geezer, then you
> might not know that's a passing score, as is a 3. Anything below is a
> pfail.

I'm a geezer, but I don't think things have changed since my day. AP tests are
not scored pass/fail, but on a 1-5 scale of qualification for colleges to use as
a basis for exempting students from introductory courses or awarding credit for
those courses.

Every time you post, you display your ignorance. Doesn't that give you pause?

So what were your SAT scores? Tell us, if only for entertainment purposes.
What are you hiding? Maybe that AP 4 was just a fluke and you couldn't break
1000 on the combined math and verbal.

[prawnster]

On May 12, 1:04 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Please quote some science text, any science text, that mentions anything "beyond
> the grave."
>
> > then it is does purport to teach people about the immanent.
>
> Science specifically declares its inability to consider the immanent.  You'll
> have to get your spiritual indoctrination elsewhere.

I don't concede that evolution is science. That's your question-
begging assumption, ratman.

I don't know any science text that has the words "beyond the grave" in
that order. But then again, I never claimed that.

And who is this "Science" you speak of? I do know that scientists
specifically declare their inability to consider the immanent --
that's why science is so useful. I don't want to hear any scientist
look at some mysterious organ in the human body, such as the appendix,
throw up his hands and sigh, "I guess Zeus just doesn't want us to
understand its function." Neither do I want to hear any scientist in
the same situation slap his knee and chortle, "Because I can't figure
it out, it must be vestigial and thus more evidence for evolution,
bwahahaha!"

[prawnster]

On May 12, 1:39 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> OK, I'll explain.  But it really takes all the fun out of things for me.  Here
> goes:  I was making fun of you for 1) thinking that your claims about your test
> scores are some kind of evidence for your argument, and 2) telling us how smart
> you were to get a 4 out of 5 when you display an abyssal ignorance of basic
> science every time you post.

> [...]

>
> I'm a geezer, but I don't think things have changed since my day.  AP tests are
> not scored pass/fail, but on a 1-5 scale of qualification for colleges to use as
> a basis for exempting students from introductory courses or awarding credit for
> those courses.
>

You're begging the question yet again: it is Darwinists who display an
abysmal ignorance of basic science precepts almost every time they
post. Your explanation makes no sense as to why you supposed I was
bragging about a 4 on the AP biology test. Mine makes total sense:
you're an insecure status whore projecting your neurosis onto me.
----
Yep: things were just like that when I took AP tests.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On May 12, 4:43 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

> "Because I can't figure
> it out, it must be vestigial and thus more evidence for evolution,
> bwahahaha!"

I'm guessing that "When do we call a structure vestigial?" is one of
the questions that prevented you from getting a perfect score on your
AP exam.

[prawnster]

On May 12, 2:51 am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> I'm guessing that "When do we call a structure vestigial?" is one of
> the questions that prevented you from getting a perfect score on your
> AP exam.

LQTM.

When I took the exam I pretended to believe in evolution and answered
as I figured the test scorers were expecting. A test is really a
pointless place to take an ideological stand: I just wanted to pick up
some college credits on the cheap.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

Not my point. Even had you wanted to parrot the "correct answer", you
evidently don't know it.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 01:43:06 -0700, prawnster wrote:

> On May 12, 1:04 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Please quote some science text, any science text, that mentions anything "beyond
>> the grave."
>>
>> > then it is does purport to teach people about the immanent.
>>
>> Science specifically declares its inability to consider the immanent.  You'll
>> have to get your spiritual indoctrination elsewhere.
>
> I don't concede that evolution is science. That's your question-
> begging assumption, ratman.

You don't have to. You do not get to decide what's science and what's not.

> I don't know any science text that has the words "beyond the grave" in
> that order. But then again, I never claimed that.
>
> And who is this "Science" you speak of?



> I do know that scientists
> specifically declare their inability to consider the immanent --
> that's why science is so useful. I don't want to hear any scientist
> look at some mysterious organ in the human body, such as the appendix,
> throw up his hands and sigh, "I guess Zeus just doesn't want us to
> understand its function." Neither do I want to hear any scientist in
> the same situation slap his knee and chortle, "Because I can't figure
> it out, it must be vestigial and thus more evidence for evolution,
> bwahahaha!"

If the evidence were restricted to the vestigial status of the appendix,
and, frankly, i don't have an opinion on that question, you might
have had a valid point. Since it isn't, you don't.

Vacuous blather, verbal foliage.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 02:18:18 -0700, prawnster wrote:

> On May 12, 1:39 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> OK, I'll explain.  But it really takes all the fun out of things for me.  Here
>> goes:  I was making fun of you for 1) thinking that your claims about your test
>> scores are some kind of evidence for your argument, and 2) telling us how smart
>> you were to get a 4 out of 5 when you display an abyssal ignorance of basic
>> science every time you post.
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm a geezer, but I don't think things have changed since my day.  AP tests are
>> not scored pass/fail, but on a 1-5 scale of qualification for colleges to use as
>> a basis for exempting students from introductory courses or awarding credit for
>> those courses.
>>
>
> You're begging the question yet again: it is Darwinists who display an
> abysmal ignorance of basic science precepts almost every time they
> post.

Now this is interesting. Please show us one example and explain why the author
displays "an abysmal ignorance of basic science precepts".

Now there's a formal challenge.

> Your explanation makes no sense as to why you supposed I was
> bragging about a 4 on the AP biology test. Mine makes total sense:
> you're an insecure status whore projecting your neurosis onto me.
> ----
> Yep: things were just like that when I took AP tests.

I couldn't remember any testscore on any of the tests i did if someone
put an AK-47 to my head. Why is that score so important to you? Why bring
it up on a public forum? It seems a tad insecure.

[Steven L.]

"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:4bed6470-d7a6-4bf0...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.
>
> How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
> that? That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.
>
> I would claim that knowledge of, and especially belief in, evolution
> creates a lot of negative feelings without being balanced at all by

> anything good. Sensitive, smart people who learn about evolution and

> discover how evolutionarily unfit they are -- e.g., they're ugly,
> sickly, clumsy, or lacking in charisma -- can be emotionally damaged
> unless they reject Darwinism and accept a faith that tells them their
> life has eternal significance, regardless of how undesirable they are
> to other homo sapiens.

I've always believed it's always better to know the truth, however
unpleasant.

We do try to shield our young children from difficult truths. (Mommy
doesn't tell her toddler child that Daddy has been cheating on her and
may not love her anymore.) But at some point, we decide that human
beings are mature enough to handle difficult truths.




-- Steven L.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 5:04:01 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 7:49 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
> > available to citizens who don't understand
> > evolution, because that would be dangerous.
> > As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
> > fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
> > defeat Communism.
>
> That the DNA/RNA of bacteria and viruses mutate has been demonstrated
> repeatedly.
>
> And what do mutated bacteria and viruses produce? Oh, yeah, that's
> right: more bacteria and viruses. Let me know when they mutate into a
> finch, tiktalik, or chimp.
>
> So you made no point, sir. And you need to stop taking science
> lessons from Doonesbury comic strips.

First I'll make the point that you don't treat
virus infection with an antibiotic.

Bacteria have basically the same DNA system
as humans - I don't know if there are
individual genes in common as well, but it's
already evidence of common descent.
in common.

[Rolf]

On 12.05.2012 04:11, prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.
>
> How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
> that? That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.
>
> I would claim that knowledge of, and especially belief in, evolution
> creates a lot of negative feelings without being balanced at all by
> anything good. Sensitive, smart people who learn about evolution and
> discover how evolutionarily unfit they are -- e.g., they're ugly,
> sickly, clumsy, or lacking in charisma -- can be emotionally damaged
> unless they reject Darwinism and accept a faith that tells them their
> life has eternal significance, regardless of how undesirable they are
> to other homo sapiens.
>

> So again, why should anyone be forced by a government to study the
> spiritual malware called evolution? Really, why is it so important to
> you, Darwinists, that people earning only a high school diploma be
> forced to learn such a potentially damaging philosophy?
>

As long as people like you use language like "the spiritual malware
called evolution" the battle for our souls must go on.

It is a fascinating fact that an attitude against science like yours is
founded on the absurd assumption that the main body of all the world
scientists over 150 plus years are or have been complete idiots!

I don't see no reason why we should accept that in a world that needs
all the knowledge and understanding that we may get.

Science and facts matter, they are what we need to ensure the continued
survival of mankind on this planet. No religion or superstition can help
us with that.

Should mankind survive? Except for sentimental reasons, I don't see no
reason why it should, any more than dinosaurs or trilobites.

[Steven L.]

"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message

news:714c85ed-781f-4f12...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Thanks to modern neuroscience, we understand how many aspects of human
intellection are traceable to brain wiring and neurotransmitters. We
now understand that people who throw fits aren't possessed by demons,
but are being affected by changes in activity of the neurons of the
brain.

Do you believe that "proves" that humans lack a soul too?

Scientific reductionism deals only with the natural world. Not God, or
Heaven, or souls.

There are many different conceptions of God. Francis Collins and Ken
Miller are devout Christians, but their conception of God and His works
is different from yours.

You won't learn much about their views on this NG, because evidently few
folks on this NG share their views. For that you'll have to learn to
use Google.



-- Steven L.

[Rolf]

On 12.05.2012 06:04, prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 7:49 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org"<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
>> available to citizens who don't understand
>> evolution, because that would be dangerous.
>> As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
>> fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
>> defeat Communism.
>>
>
> That the DNA/RNA of bacteria and viruses mutate has been demonstrated
> repeatedly.
>
> And what do mutated bacteria and viruses produce? Oh, yeah, that's
> right: more bacteria and viruses. Let me know when they mutate into a
> finch, tiktalik, or chimp.
>

I wouldn't have expected a less stupid comment from you. But thank you
for removing the least possible doubt that you had any clue.

> So you made no point, sir. And you need to stop taking science
> lessons from Doonesbury comic strips.
>

> -----
> "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know, assuming
> their parents are chimps." -- prawndaddy
>

[Rolf]

Your archives? When we have great archives of real science? Prove that
you are not stupid.

[Rolf]

On 12.05.2012 07:29, prawnster wrote:

Why should we accept your crackpot ideas?
The diarrhea is yours, it reeks all over.
Pseudoarguments? Pseudoarguments? I don't think you are a a pseudoidiot,
you smell like the real thing.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?
>
> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists. Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution. People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.
>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam. I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise. Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.
>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists? I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
> your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
> all the way until their assisted suicide.
>
> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.
>
Why should anybody be forced to learn anything that isn't directly
useful to the average person? I agree. There's no reason to teach that
the earth goes around the sun, or that matter is made of atoms, or that
Napoleon was emperor of France. We could eliminate everything except
readin', writin', and 'rithmetic, because who needs it? It isn't as if
knowledge has any value in itself, or as if an educated public is more
capable of making wise decisions on policy than an ignorant one. Who
needs to know anything, really?

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:

> On May 11, 9:27 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]

>> Is that what happened to you? In spite of your AP scores, you were
>> scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma? So because you
>> were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
>> school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
>> something you all "Darwinism"?
>>
>
> No. Darwinism taught me that, as a genetic loser, my life was without
> meaning and I should kill myself.

Then you're lucky that the AP biology test doesn't test you much on
evolution, or you wouldn't have that 4. All this shows is your ignorance
of an important element of biology.

> I don't blame Darwinism for
> whatever bad feelings I had about being rejected by other people, but
> it would have been better for me had I not been raised as an atheo-
> Darwinist.

Almost all creationists who claim to have been raised as atheists are
eventually shown to have been lying, which is reason to suspect that
you're lying now.

> I would not have wasted so many years in despair had I
> been taught instead that I'm an eternal being and not just a sack of
> meat whose ultimate goal, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not,
> is to reproduce my apparently defective DNA and then take an unending

> dirt nap. That narrative was so uninspiring to me that I preferred
> death. And that is the narrative molecules-to-man evolution teaches.

> And that's one very good reason no government should force its
> citizens to learn it, along with the others I gave above.

You may be an eternal being, but unless you belong to the 144,000 of the
Elect, you're going to spend that eternity in hell. Now just how less
despairing does that make you feel?

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 12, 1:04 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Please quote some science text, any science text, that mentions anything
"beyond
>> the grave."
>>
>> > then it is does purport to teach people about the immanent.
>>
>> Science specifically declares its inability to consider the immanent.  You'll
>> have to get your spiritual indoctrination elsewhere.
>
> I don't concede that evolution is science.

Well, of course you don't. But you're an incredible ignoramus. You don't know
anything about the theory of evolution. Your posts are full of howlers. If you
can't even get the basics right, why would anyone care what you "concede"? Why
would a scientist even take note of you?

> That's your question-begging assumption, ratman.

Pure projection. You think that since you have taken no effort to inform
yourself, then the same must be true of me. You don't have to accept that
evolution is a valid description of the workings of the biosphere, but until you
understand what scientists say, you're just an object of ridicule. I'm not
going to bother to refute your caricature of evolution. Nobody cares about the
uninformed ramblings of an ignoramus. Although, I do find them highly
entertaining.

> I don't know any science text that has the words "beyond the grave" in
> that order. But then again, I never claimed that.

Don't back away from your position now. Own it.

> And who is this "Science" you speak of? I do know that scientists
> specifically declare their inability to consider the immanent --
> that's why science is so useful.

Which is why your conclusions about your worth or what goes on beyond the grave
have nothing to do with what science tells us. It might tell us something about
you, but that's different.

> I don't want to hear any scientist
> look at some mysterious organ in the human body, such as the appendix,
> throw up his hands and sigh, "I guess Zeus just doesn't want us to
> understand its function." Neither do I want to hear any scientist in
> the same situation slap his knee and chortle, "Because I can't figure
> it out, it must be vestigial and thus more evidence for evolution,
> bwahahaha!"

Who cares what you want to hear? You're an ignoramus. Can you even tell me
what it means in biology for some structure to be vestigial? I doubt it. If
you knew, then you'd be able to evaluate the technical arguments that scientists
make to conclude that the appendix is vestigial. But you can't. How do I know?
Because scientists almost never chortle, and they certainly haven't concluded
that the appendix is vestigial because they "can't figure it out."

On the basis of this post alone, I'm gonna conclude that your combined SATs were
below 950.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 12, 1:39 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> OK, I'll explain.  But it really takes all the fun out of things for me.
 Here
>> goes:  I was making fun of you for 1) thinking that your claims about your
test
>> scores are some kind of evidence for your argument, and 2) telling us how
smart
>> you were to get a 4 out of 5 when you display an abyssal ignorance of basic
>> science every time you post.
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm a geezer, but I don't think things have changed since my day.  AP tests
are
>> not scored pass/fail, but on a 1-5 scale of qualification for colleges to use
as
>> a basis for exempting students from introductory courses or awarding credit
for
>> those courses.
>>
>
> You're begging the question yet again: it is Darwinists who display an
> abysmal ignorance of basic science precepts almost every time they
> post.

Projection.

> Your explanation makes no sense as to why you supposed I was
> bragging about a 4 on the AP biology test. Mine makes total sense:
> you're an insecure status whore projecting your neurosis onto me.

More projection.

> ----
> Yep: things were just like that when I took AP tests.

And yet you claimed they were pass/fail. Go figure.

[Inez]

On May 11, 9:56 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 9:27 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Is that what happened to you?  In spite of your AP scores, you were
> > scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma?  So because you
> > were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
> > school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
> > something you all "Darwinism"?
>
> No.  Darwinism taught me that, as a genetic loser, my life was without
> meaning and I should kill myself.

Don't sell yourself short, you are so many other kinds of loser as
well.

> I don't blame Darwinism for
> whatever bad feelings I had about being rejected by other people,

That's good, because it was probably more an effect of your odious
personality.

> but
> it would have been better for me had I not been raised as an atheo-

> Darwinist.  I would not have wasted so many years in despair had I

> been taught instead that I'm an eternal being and not just a sack of
> meat whose ultimate goal, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not,
> is to reproduce my apparently defective DNA and then take an unending
> dirt nap.  That narrative was so uninspiring to me that I preferred
> death.  And that is the narrative molecules-to-man evolution teaches.

And you find the Christian narrative more inspiring? You're a
worthless sinner but if you grovel for forgivness then God will let
you into his special club instead of torturing you forever?

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On May 12, 2:51 am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'm guessing that "When do we call a structure vestigial?" is one of
>> the questions that prevented you from getting a perfect score on your
>> AP exam.
>
> LQTM.
>
> When I took the exam I pretended to believe in evolution

And no one cared, did they? Because science isn't about belief; it's
about understanding. Which answers your question about teaching
evolution in public schools. No one is required to "believe in it"; just
to understand it.

> and answered as I figured the test scorers were expecting.

If your posts here are any indication, that's not something you could
have figured out.

> A test is really a
> pointless place to take an ideological stand: I just wanted to pick up
> some college credits on the cheap.

Tell us what prestigious institution you attended.

[deadrat]

Rolf <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12.05.2012 07:29, prawnster wrote:
>> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Yet another repetitive big yawn.
>>
>> And when I refer you to my archives, you call me troll.
>>
>> So what should I do, Jillbaby? Repeat myself like a crank or refer
>> Mr. Carnegie to my archives instead like a troll?
>>
>> I have an even better idea: admit that my ideas are better than yours
>> or quit making the same weaksauce pseudoarguments again and again ad
>> diarrheum.
>>
>

> Your archives? When we have great archives of real science? Prove that
> you are not stupid.

That train may have left the station.

[deadrat]

Wait. Napoleon was emperor of France? Don't think so. Who can observe
that? That's just more of your postmodern salade de mots.

<snip/>

[Xavier Onnasis]

deadrat <miscle...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7545042C-D660-4FD7-9127-D83DA8CBF5AD%miscle...@gmail.com:

> prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have made my AP score clear here on usernet
>
> Not possible. How do we know you even took the test?
>

looks like you've been skewered, prawnster...you wanna
make your case, I think you better get a video posted
on YouTube pronto



--

XO

[deadrat]

And why won't he post his SAT scores? Very suspicious, don't you
think? 'Cause if his combined scores were over say, 1200, then
everything he says about evolution would be correct.

[Connie]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 9:25:44 PM UTC-4, prawnster wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?
>
> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists. Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution. People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.
>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam. I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise. Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.
>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists? I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
> your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
> all the way until their assisted suicide.
>
> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

I'm probably way too old to engage in this kind of dorm-room repartee, but I would like to comment on the "will they ever use it?" aspect of Prawnster's post. Education is not should never be designed entirely around usable facts, but around an ideal of the full person. No one is likely to use the fact that the planets revolve around the sun or that the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in ---(see? I've forgotten). Our kids have to learn these things, and thousands of other things, because that's what what may make them fully human, realized human beings in this time and place.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Connie
<conrad...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Agreed. High school to some degree and college to a greater degree need
to prepare you to learn for the rest of your life.

Breed's Hill.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
>by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
>college, and then only as an elective?

What's so bad about legislating *for* ignorance? Well, I
suppose nothing, really, in any sort of basic way; humans
managed to survive until a century and a half ago without
this particular knowledge.

Maybe we should do the same with medicine, much of which is
based on evolutionary knowledge and theory and is therefore
related...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/11/12 7:11 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.
>
> How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
> that? That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.

It is sometimes useful for feeding the poor and healing the sick. In
other words, you are correct that you would have no use for it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[N.O.Body]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in

news:2b78430a-3236-44c0...@h10g2000pbi.googlegr

oups.com:

> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially

> requested by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not

> be taught until college, and then only as an elective?

>

... equivocating drivel snipped...



Two problems that anyone over the mental age of 30 will

identify:



1. "Give me the child, and I'll give you the man."



2. It's only a scumbag, lying, dishonet (i.e., Idotic

Design/Cretinist) ploy to open the door to completly banning the

entire subject down the road, when only the political/parasite

class is watching.



Fool me once, shame on you,

Try to fool me twice, I'll punch you dead in the face...

[Mark Buchanan]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 9:25:44 PM UTC-4, prawnster wrote:

> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?
>

> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists. Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution. People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.
>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam. I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise. Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.
>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists?

The truth.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <rmctq71j51co1ddem...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Maybe we should do the same with medicine, much of which is
> based on evolutionary knowledge and theory and is therefore
> related...

One solution to the population problem. But methinks it's suboptimal,
however, probably better than the way we will choose. <sigh>

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[SkyEyes]

On May 11, 10:35 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
> > spayshul enuff?
>
> Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?

You know, I *do*. It means that I am related to all other life forms
on the planet - a notion that fills me with delight. Every spider,
every snake, every kitty, every giant redwood tree - these are all my
relatives. I am at *home*. I belong here.

> Do you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're
> aware of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

I like it perfectly fine, and have no fucking clue what your objection
to it is.
>
> So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
> to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
> evolution in their life?

Well, you see, I used to *be* that high schooler. I was brought up
christian fundamentalist, an old-earth creationist. Like you, I was
taught that humans were "made in the image of God" and had a "higher
purpose." My parents objected to evolution being taught in my high
school biology class, until my teacher assured them that I wasn't
required to "believe" it, only to know how it is supposed to have
worked.

I found in that class an attachment to nature that I had never felt
before - certainly not in any church where the unevidenced
supernatural was being sold wholesale. I felt an upwelling of delight
in, and affection for, my planet and its inhabitants - all of them,
not just the other humans. I realized that the Earth and the universe
and the other creatures were *not* just stage dressing for some cosmic
morality play between Man and God, but formed a seemless web, all
interrelated, back to the dark mists of time. We all fight the same
battle, and I find that enobling.

So there's my testimony, prawnster. You can take your "higher
purpose" and preach it all you like; I am *not buying*. I belong to
this Earth, and this Earth belongs to me. I am a sister of everything
that lives, and find that breathtaking in its implication.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Kermit]

On May 11, 9:04 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 7:49 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
> > available to citizens who don't understand
> > evolution, because that would be dangerous.
> > As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
> > fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
> > defeat Communism.
>
> That the DNA/RNA of bacteria and viruses mutate has been demonstrated
> repeatedly.

Yes, by scientists who learned how reality works.
I doubt if one in a thousand geneticists are Creationists.

>
> And what do mutated bacteria and viruses produce?  Oh, yeah, that's
> right: more bacteria and viruses.  Let me know when they mutate into a
> finch, tiktalik, or chimp.

And my savings account earned a trivial amount last month, therefore
investing money never turns a big profit.

>
> So you made no point, sir.  And you need to stop taking science
> lessons from Doonesbury comic strips.

Doonesbury strips are smarter than Chick comic strips.

And I first learned adult level evolutionary science from a science
literate Christian, who earned his PhD in microbiology. He seemed
saddened by Christians who thought their religion demanded that they
be ignorant, but he didn't talk about it much.

>
> -----
> "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know, assuming
> their parents are chimps."  -- prawndaddy

Kermit

[Kermit]

Not only does it create a gestalt that maps well to reality, but it
exposes kids (and adults in college) to ideas and fields that they
might never otherwise have been exposed to.

It's no surprise that our OP, who is determined to deny reality, also
despises education in general, and sees no use for it if there is no
profit for him.

What a sad and empty life!

Kermit

[Kermit]

On May 11, 6:25 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?
>
> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists.  Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution.  People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.
>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam.  I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise.  Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.
>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists?  I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
> your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
> all the way until their assisted suicide.
>
> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

Empires slide back into third world backwaters so quickly these days!
When I was a kid...

Kermit

[Mark Isaak]

Nominated for Post of the Month.

[Garamond Lethe]

Seconded.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:35:13 -0700, prawnster wrote:

> On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
>> spayshul enuff?
>>
>>
> Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?

I certainly do. Reductionism makes the world explicable, and that in
turn (given sufficient effort) makes the world understandable and, to
some small extent, controllable. Understanding and control may not be
sufficient for happiness, but they help.

> Do
> you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're aware
> of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

My whole purpose in life is to create and appreciate beauty (and I get
paid to do it, too). I find this work profoundly humbling and
fulfilling. It has led to deep friendships with my colleagues and is
demonstrably making the world a better, safer place.

I couldn't do any of that without reductionism.

What's your purpose?

>
> So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
> to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
> evolution in their life?

I hadn't realized it was possible to force any high schooler to learn.

[Mike Dworetsky]

I'll second it! We are stardust...

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Mike Dworetsky]

prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
>> spayshul enuff?
>>
>
> Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?

> Do you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're
> aware of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

Just a moment. Your vulgar reductionism aside, as far as anyone can
determine, ALL life

A) as individual organisms, will die, sooner or later;
B) needs to metabolize chemical compounds (some very complicated ones such
as proteins) in order to live;
C) after metabolizing needs to excrete the waste products;
D) results from reproduction of parent organisms. However, only "more
advanced" forms use sexual reproduction which could be described as
"fucking". Though I think that is stretching a point if you are talking
about flowering plants.

Is that all there is? For some living things, it seems to be, more or less.

For humans, the things that make us human, there is more, but whether it is
a purpose derived from a sky pixie or other divine source, or just something
we have learned to do because it enhances actrivities B, C, and D, or
something more complicated, could be discussed.

Like Brenda, I find the idea that we are related to all living things
exhilarating. And, among other things, when I am cleaning in the garage, I
am just that little bit nicer to the spiders.

>
> So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
> to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
> evolution in their life?

When their doctors change their prescription for an antibiotic to kill the
gonorrhea*, they are using knowledge of evolution. Just because the
bacteria never seem to change into a cat hardly seems a valid argument
against evolution.

*antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for STDs; and it's due to
evolution.

[Frank J]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 9:25:44 PM UTC-4, prawnster wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?
>
> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists. Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution. People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.
>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam. I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise. Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.
>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists? I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
> your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
> all the way until their assisted suicide.
>
> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no

> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

Let me translate for those readers who actually read past the word "Darwinists" (other than for entertainment):

Scopes-era anti-evolution activists *did* mandate that children not be taught evolution. Presumably "prawnster" will devote some "equal time" to whining about them too.

Most of today's anti-evolution activists *do* want students to learn "molecules-to-monkeys-darwinism", as long as (1) it is accompanied by misrepresentations "designed" exclusively to promote unreasonable doubt, and (2) NOT accompanied by refutations of those misrepresentations. In settling for "teach none of the above" (the 1999 Kansas strategy) "prawnster" will treat us to "equal time" to whining about them too, right?

If you are convinced that he will do neither, and not bothering to ask why, I hope you will also find it unnecessary to answer his other PRATTs.

[Frank J]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:07:31 AM UTC-4, Kermit wrote:
> On May 11, 9:04 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On May 11, 7:49 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >
> > orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Ideally, antibiotic drugs would be not
> > > available to citizens who don't understand
> > > evolution, because that would be dangerous.
> > > As it happens, antibiotics are routinely
> > > fed to livestock, but I suppose it is to
> > > defeat Communism.
> >
> > That the DNA/RNA of bacteria and viruses mutate has been demonstrated
> > repeatedly.
>
> Yes, by scientists who learned how reality works.
> I doubt if one in a thousand geneticists are Creationists.

It's more like:

1 in 1000 deny Darwinian evolution (& would sign the dishonest "dissent" statement)
1 in 10,000 also deny common descent
1 in 25,000 (are there even that many?) also think that the Universe is only 1000s of years old.

And yet...every single one of them would jump at the chance to support one of those explanations if the evidence would only let them.

>
> >
> > And what do mutated bacteria and viruses produce?  Oh, yeah, that's
> > right: more bacteria and viruses.  Let me know when they mutate into a
> > finch, tiktalik, or chimp.
>
> And my savings account earned a trivial amount last month, therefore
> investing money never turns a big profit.
>
> >
> > So you made no point, sir.  And you need to stop taking science
> > lessons from Doonesbury comic strips.
>
> Doonesbury strips are smarter than Chick comic strips.
>
> And I first learned adult level evolutionary science from a science
> literate Christian, who earned his PhD in microbiology. He seemed
> saddened by Christians who thought their religion demanded that they
> be ignorant, but he didn't talk about it much.
>
> >
> > -----
> > "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know, assuming
> > their parents are chimps."  -- prawndaddy
>
> Kermit

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <37ab3665-6650-4d3e...@t35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>On May 11, 10:35 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
>> > spayshul enuff?
>>
>> Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?
>
>You know, I *do*. It means that I am related to all other life forms
>on the planet - a notion that fills me with delight. Every spider,
>every snake, every kitty, every giant redwood tree - these are all my
>relatives. I am at *home*. I belong here.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

--Charles Darwin, _The Origin of Species_

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[TomS]

"On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
<2b78430a-3236-44c0...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
stated..."

>
>What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
>by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
>college, and then only as an elective?

[...snip...]

Why is that the expression "molecules-to-man" is attached only to
"evolution"? By anti-evolutionists only, of course.

After all, that would more appropriately describe reproduction,
development, or metabolism. Has anybody ever said "molecules-to-man
nutrition" when discussing the function of molecules like vitamins
and other nutrients in one's diet?

Anyway, how many people remember their high-school days when their
classmates were protesting about being forced to learn algebra?


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[jillery]

On 13 May 2012 07:48:02 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>"On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
><2b78430a-3236-44c0...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
>stated..."
>>
>>What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
>>by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
>>college, and then only as an elective?
>[...snip...]
>
>Why is that the expression "molecules-to-man" is attached only to
>"evolution"? By anti-evolutionists only, of course.
>
>After all, that would more appropriately describe reproduction,
>development, or metabolism. Has anybody ever said "molecules-to-man
>nutrition" when discussing the function of molecules like vitamins
>and other nutrients in one's diet?

Good point. It's another example of anti-evolutionists' selective
and/or inappropriate application of an argument.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

I assume that "seemless" should be "seamless".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:42:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <miscle...@gmail.com>:

>Rolf <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12.05.2012 07:29, prawnster wrote:
>>> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Yet another repetitive big yawn.
>>>
>>> And when I refer you to my archives, you call me troll.
>>>
>>> So what should I do, Jillbaby? Repeat myself like a crank or refer
>>> Mr. Carnegie to my archives instead like a troll?
>>>
>>> I have an even better idea: admit that my ideas are better than yours
>>> or quit making the same weaksauce pseudoarguments again and again ad
>>> diarrheum.
>>>
>>
>> Your archives? When we have great archives of real science? Prove that
>> you are not stupid.
>
>That train may have left the station.

And you complained in another thread when I said his posts
indicated he may be a sociopathic personality? Well, other
than his posts, on what do you base your judgement the he's
stupid? (And incidentally, I disagree; "stupid" is not the
same as "willfully ignorant".)

[Bob Casanova]

On 12 May 2012 18:09:35 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Xavier Onnasis
<xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com>:

....which would prove exactly nothing, given that I've
watched videos of Elvis' encounter with the Mars Explorer.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:18:23 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <miscle...@gmail.com>:

???

How so? Does intelligence confer accuracy?

[chris thompson]

On May 11, 9:25 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?
>

> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists.  Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution.  People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.
>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam.  I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise.  Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.
>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists?  I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution; you would be free to teach
> your kids all about it, from their botched third-trimester abortion
> all the way until their assisted suicide.
>
> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

Good thought. I agree completely.

All we need to teach your kids is how to flip burgers without scalding
their coworkers. Given their genetics, they could probably grasp the
concept by the time they are about 35 years old.

Chris

[deadrat]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:18:23 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <miscle...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> deadrat <miscle...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:7545042C-D660-4FD7-9127-D83DA8CBF5AD%miscle...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have made my AP score clear here on usernet
>>>>
>>>> Not possible. How do we know you even took the test?
>>>>
>>>
>>> looks like you've been skewered, prawnster...you wanna
>>> make your case, I think you better get a video posted
>>> on YouTube pronto
>>
>>And why won't he post his SAT scores? Very suspicious, don't you
>>think? 'Cause if his combined scores were over say, 1200, then
>>everything he says about evolution would be correct.
>
> ???
>
> How so? Does intelligence confer accuracy?

Do I really have to mark the passages that aren't to be taken
seriously? Because I will if it's absolutely necessary. Just not as
much fun for me.

[deadrat]

It. was. a. joke.

In the subjective mood, no less.

[Will in New Haven]

Do you ever write poetry? How do you expect people not to fall in love
with you when you write things like that?

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

On May 12, 8:23 am, Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12.05.2012 04:11, prawnster wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.
>
> > How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
> > that?  That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.
>
> > I would claim that knowledge of, and especially belief in, evolution
> > creates a lot of negative feelings without being balanced at all by
> > anything good.  Sensitive, smart people who learn about evolution and
> > discover how evolutionarily unfit they are -- e.g., they're ugly,
> > sickly, clumsy, or lacking in charisma -- can be emotionally damaged
> > unless they reject Darwinism and accept a faith that tells them their
> > life has eternal significance, regardless of how undesirable they are
> > to other homo sapiens.
>
> > So again, why should anyone be forced by a government to study the
> > spiritual malware called evolution?  Really, why is it so important to
> > you, Darwinists, that people earning only a high school diploma be
> > forced to learn such a potentially damaging philosophy?
>
> As long as people like you use language like "the spiritual malware
> called evolution" the battle for our souls must go on.
>
> It is a fascinating fact that an attitude against science like yours is
> founded on the absurd assumption that the main body of all the world
> scientists over 150 plus years are or have been complete idiots!
>
> I don't see no reason why we should accept that in a world that needs
> all the knowledge and understanding that we may get.
>
> Science and facts matter, they are what we need to ensure the continued
> survival of mankind on this planet. No religion or superstition can help
> us with that.
>
> Should mankind survive? Except for sentimental reasons, I don't see no
> reason why it should, any more than dinosaurs or trilobites.

But who would feed my cat and feed and walk my dogs?

[Will in New Haven]

On May 12, 1:35 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
> > spayshul enuff?
>
> Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?

> Do you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're
> aware of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

What does it matter whether we LIKE it? Not that I find the vengeful
little man in the sky all that attractive either.

--
Will in New Haven

"What is, is; what should be is a dirty lie." Lenny Bruce

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:06:29 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:

> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> Do I really have to mark the passages that aren't to be taken
> seriously? Because I will if it's absolutely necessary. Just not as
> much fun for me.

It helps. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>

Depending on what you actually say. Sometimes
it does not help.

I use the "smiley“" for "funny", and the "wink"
for "funny but true".

[Frank J]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:48:02 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> "On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <2b78430a-3236-44c0...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
> stated..."
> >
> >What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> >by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> >college, and then only as an elective?
> [...snip...]
>
> Why is that the expression "molecules-to-man" is attached only to
> "evolution"? By anti-evolutionists only, of course.

As with "Darwinism," "Darwinist(s)" and "evolutionism" they know they're attacking a strawman. Not sure if they're trying to fool readers or God. Since their caricature of God is as pathetic as their caricature of evolution. I would not be at all surprised if it's the latter.

[deadrat]

"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"

<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:06:29 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> Do I really have to mark the passages that aren't to be taken
>> seriously? Because I will if it's absolutely necessary. Just not as
>> much fun for me.
>
> It helps. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>

Ooh! Emoticons! Are those the punctuation thingies that the kids all use on
the intertubes? Alas, I can't use those. Too old.

Or I am confusing that with sexting?

> Depending on what you actually say. Sometimes
> it does not help.
>
> I use the "smiley“" for "funny", and the "wink"
> for "funny but true".

Does that make what you post funny?

Or true?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/12/2012 01:42 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Rolf<rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12.05.2012 07:29, prawnster wrote:
>>> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Yet another repetitive big yawn.
>>>
>>> And when I refer you to my archives, you call me troll.
>>>
>>> So what should I do, Jillbaby? Repeat myself like a crank or refer
>>> Mr. Carnegie to my archives instead like a troll?
>>>
>>> I have an even better idea: admit that my ideas are better than yours
>>> or quit making the same weaksauce pseudoarguments again and again ad
>>> diarrheum.
>>>
>>
>> Your archives? When we have great archives of real science? Prove that
>> you are not stupid.
>
> That train may have left the station.

Your train is derailing into separate broken threads. Probably an issue
with Xnntp/beta07 (UNIBIN Mac OS 10.4.11+) whatever that is. I'm
noticing it on two different readers (T-bird and XPN). Is it the way you
do followups?


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:55:02 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:06:29 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:
> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> Do I really have to mark the passages that aren't to be taken
> >> seriously? Because I will if it's absolutely necessary. Just not as
> >> much fun for me.
> >
> > It helps. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>
>
> Ooh! Emoticons! Are those the punctuation thingies that the kids all use on
> the intertubes? Alas, I can't use those. Too old.

In fact the article claims "The use of emoticons can be
traced back to the 19th century, and they were commonly
used in casual and humorous writing."

See also _Tristram Shandy_...

> Or I am confusing that with sexting?

Fine as long as you don't sext me.

> > Depending on what you actually say. Sometimes
> > it does not help.
> >
> > I use the "smiley“" for "funny", and the "wink"
> > for "funny but true".
>
> Does that make what you post funny?
>
> Or true?

That's up to you. But it's a way to underscore
your intention and avoid being misunderstood.

But, as I say, it may not save you from contempt.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/13/2012 07:52 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:55:02 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:

[snip]

>> Or I am confusing that with sexting?
>
> Fine as long as you don't sext me.

Only at 12 N.

Trying to navigate this subthread without aid of a sextant. Or without
digging myself in deeper aided by the sexton who does ring a bell.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[A.Carlson]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:11:07 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On May 11, 6:34 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's all about an informed public and the common good and all that.
>
>How does knowledge of evolution contribute to the common good and all
>that? That's pretty vague, trickiwiki.
>
>I would claim that knowledge of, and especially belief in, evolution
>creates a lot of negative feelings without being balanced at all by
>anything good.

Such a claim appears to be both self serving and wrong.

>Sensitive, smart people who learn about evolution and
>discover how evolutionarily unfit they are -- e.g., they're ugly,
>sickly, clumsy, or lacking in charisma -- can be emotionally damaged
>unless they reject Darwinism and accept a faith that tells them their
>life has eternal significance, regardless of how undesirable they are
>to other homo sapiens.

And yet states with the highest rates of religiosity have some of the
highest crime rates, divorce rates, and incarceration rates while
states with lower rates of religiosity fare much better. The same
holds true when comparing developed nations with each other.

>So again, why should anyone be forced by a government to study the
>spiritual malware called evolution?

Yes, why should anyone be forced to attain a proper education? Surely
the government has no interest in promoting such a thing. The fact
that we, as a nation, are lagging behind so many other nations in
areas of higher learning should be of no interest to anyone.

>Really, why is it so important to
>you, Darwinists, that people earning only a high school diploma be
>forced to learn such a potentially damaging philosophy?

Perhaps so they could be inoculated against lies from idiots like you?
There are a number of things wrong with just this one sentence.

First, on what do you base the claim that the ToE is a 'potentially
damaging philosophy'? (look up fallacy of appeal to [in this case
actually nonexistent] negative consequences for starters)

Even if it were a damaging philosophy (evidence clearly indicates that
it isn't) that is separate from the issue of whether or not it is
true.

What is ultimately wrong with broadening the minds of even those who
may not go on to a higher education? Ideally all citizens should have
a well rounded education that includes basic principles of science.

The pre-college education system should also not be based on the
assumption that people will not be going on to attain a higher level
of education or that it should not support an interest in broadening
one's horizons beyond the bare minimum. Pre-college education should,
among other things, lay down a solid foundation for further study and
the ToE is a founding principle of modern science whether you
personally like it or agree with it or not!.

[A.Carlson]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:35:13 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On May 11, 10:28 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, basically, you dislike evolution because it doesn't let you feel
>> spayshul enuff?
>>
>
>Do you find the reductive Darwinist narrative inspiring, Ms. Nelson?

Since when does level of inspiration have anything to do with degree
of truth?

>Do you like the idea that your whole purpose in life, whether you're
>aware of it or not, is to eat, shit, fuck, die?

Although not my "whole purpose in life" when done correctly I find two
(and sometimes three) of these things enjoyable and the remaining
nothing more than an inevitable fact of life.

My knowledge about the ToE does not at all diminish my level of
enjoyment of these as well as many other things.

There are a great many people who both accept the ToE and lead long
and productive lives. These are not mutually exclusive.

>So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
>to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
>evolution in their life?

Because it is best when a participatory society has citizenry who are
broadly educated.

Is it your assertion that no one in high school will go on to a higher
education or will have no personal interest in broadening their
knowledge?

Should high schools NOT lay a foundation that is supportive of higher
education?

Are you really suggesting that things should be dumbed down to the
bare minimum? There are no doubt those who will never cross the
threshold of a museum or art gallery outside of field trips forced
upon them in their youth but my pre-college education, which included
classes in art appreciation in addition to history classes allows me
to appreciate and understand such things even more thoroughly. What a
waste for those who chose to just bury their heads in the sand.

[*Hemidactylus*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdb4NyHdFfE

If I had one objection to Brenda's post is that she didn't say "You can
take your "higher purpose" and [expletive phrase deleted]". But POTM yes.

--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/12/2012 09:21 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> prawnster wrote:

>> On May 11, 9:27 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Is that what happened to you? In spite of your AP scores, you were
>>> scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma? So because you
>>> were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
>>> school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
>>> something you all "Darwinism"?
>>>
>>
>> No. Darwinism taught me that, as a genetic loser, my life was without
>> meaning and I should kill myself.
>
> Then you're lucky that the AP biology test doesn't test you much on
> evolution, or you wouldn't have that 4. All this shows is your ignorance
> of an important element of biology.
>
>> I don't blame Darwinism for
>> whatever bad feelings I had about being rejected by other people, but
>> it would have been better for me had I not been raised as an atheo-
>> Darwinist.
>
> Almost all creationists who claim to have been raised as atheists are
> eventually shown to have been lying, which is reason to suspect that
> you're lying now.
>
>> I would not have wasted so many years in despair had I
>> been taught instead that I'm an eternal being and not just a sack of
>> meat whose ultimate goal, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not,
>> is to reproduce my apparently defective DNA and then take an unending
>> dirt nap. That narrative was so uninspiring to me that I preferred
>> death. And that is the narrative molecules-to-man evolution teaches.
>> And that's one very good reason no government should force its
>> citizens to learn it, along with the others I gave above.
>
> You may be an eternal being, but unless you belong to the 144,000 of the
> Elect, you're going to spend that eternity in hell. Now just how less
> despairing does that make you feel?

He's probably been thrown into the digital Gehenna known as a killfile
numerous times already. All hell amounts to is a garbage dump outside
Jerusalem where human sacrifices were alleged to happen. Heaven is just
another invention of the speculative mind.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/12/2012 01:06 PM, Inez wrote:

> On May 11, 9:56 pm, prawnster<zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 9:27 pm, deadrat<misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Is that what happened to you? In spite of your AP scores, you were
>>> scorned as ugly, sickly, clumsy, and lacking in charisma? So because you
>>> were undesirable to other homo sapiens (i.e., the girls in your high
>>> school), you decided that the resulting bad feelings were the fault of
>>> something you all "Darwinism"?
>>
>> No. Darwinism taught me that, as a genetic loser, my life was without
>> meaning and I should kill myself.
>

> Don't sell yourself short, you are so many other kinds of loser as
> well.

>
>> I don't blame Darwinism for
>> whatever bad feelings I had about being rejected by other people,
>

> That's good, because it was probably more an effect of your odious
> personality.

>
>> but
>> it would have been better for me had I not been raised as an atheo-

>> Darwinist. I would not have wasted so many years in despair had I

>> been taught instead that I'm an eternal being and not just a sack of
>> meat whose ultimate goal, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not,
>> is to reproduce my apparently defective DNA and then take an unending
>> dirt nap. That narrative was so uninspiring to me that I preferred
>> death. And that is the narrative molecules-to-man evolution teaches.
>

> And you find the Christian narrative more inspiring? You're a
> worthless sinner but if you grovel for forgivness then God will let
> you into his special club instead of torturing you forever?

If people like the rotten shrimp are on St. Peter's A-list that's all
the more reason to be an atheist. I couldn't stand that nonsense for an
eternity. Can you imagine having to hang out with people like him,
Nando, and Jabbers forever? Add Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Hell
can't be *that* bad.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[deadrat]

On 5/13/12 6:52 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:55:02 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:
>> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:06:29 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> Do I really have to mark the passages that aren't to be taken
>>>> seriously? Because I will if it's absolutely necessary. Just not as
>>>> much fun for me.
>>>
>>> It helps.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>
>>
>> Ooh! Emoticons! Are those the punctuation thingies that the kids all use on
>> the intertubes? Alas, I can't use those. Too old.
>
> In fact the article claims "The use of emoticons can be
> traced back to the 19th century, and they were commonly
> used in casual and humorous writing."
>
> See also _Tristram Shandy_...

Now you're going to get all sterne on me.

>> Or I am confusing that with sexting?
>
> Fine as long as you don't sext me.

I'll bet you could have used a really interesting emoticon at
the end of that sentence.

>>> Depending on what you actually say. Sometimes
>>> it does not help.
>>>
>>> I use the "smiley“" for "funny", and the "wink"
>>> for "funny but true".
>>
>> Does that make what you post funny?
>>
>> Or true?
>
> That's up to you.

Really?

> But it's a way to underscore

I guess there are underscores in emoticons sometimes, or so they tell me.

> your intention and avoid being misunderstood.

Ah, guideposts for the humorless and clueless. Let me consider using
emoticons .... ah

no.

> But, as I say, it may not save you from contempt.

Is that what you say? So instead of getting the joke, you get to hold
me in contempt?

I'm just gonna have to find a way to live with that.

[deadrat]

I don't think so. Xnntp doesn't have much in the way of documentation,
so I could be wrong. This is T-bird 3.1.7.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/13/12 5:07 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 05/13/2012 07:52 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:55:02 PM UTC+1, deadrat wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Or I am confusing that with sexting?
>>
>> Fine as long as you don't sext me.
>
> Only at 12 N.

"Sext at noon tatxes." Um, no, I'll stick with planning canals.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <b2ae661f-8162-4ba3...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>So do you have an opinion about why any high schooler should be forced
>to learn about evolution, when they'll almost certainly never use
>evolution in their life?

Unfortunately, the same can--and has--been said about every aspect
of math and science education. "The students will never use it.
Besides, we can always hire foreigners to do math and science if we
need to."


--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius

[Glen Davidson]

On May 11, 6:25 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> What's so bad about legislating that, except when specially requested
> by parents, molecules-to-man evolution shall not be taught until
> college, and then only as an elective?

What should we teach, dumbfuck? Should we teach biology? Should we
teach that biology is based on chemistry? If we do that, shouldn't we
also teach that biology is the effect of evolution?

Should we teach about languages without teaching that they evolve?

>
> I'm not certain I understand why this is so objectionable to atheists
> and Darwinists.  Most people in their day-to-day lives have zero use
> for evolution.

Do they have use for science? If so, why shouldn't we teach science,
including the rather striking fact that it can explain life?

Or should they just rant stupidly like you do?

 People who imagine they must understand evolution, say
> students getting a bachelor's degree in biology, can study it in upper-
> division college classes.

Oh yeah, why would we teach the basis of anything like biology prior
to college? What a great preparation for any career related to
science to leave out one of the most important science theories.

>
> And please don't whip out that hoary canard that biology cannot be
> understood unless one believes in and understands evolution -- Exhibit
> A: I got a 4 on the biology AP exam.

Look, you're a stupid fuck on biology. I don't care if you can chant
out facts or not, when you're blithering on without a clue about the
importance of evolution to biology you are, ipso facto, writing like
an idiot. And I have no idea if you're telling the truth, you
despicable jerk.

I understand biology just fine
> without accepting a single Darwinist premise.

Yeah, uh, what was the evidence that you understand it well? Oh,
none, you apparently lack the understanding even of the importance of
evidence in science, and in life.

 Also, as I have
> demonstrated before, you can go through any biology text and just
> replace "evolved" with "designed" or "evolution" with "Flying
> Spaghetti Monster" without doing violence to the text's meaning.

Meaning that you don't even understand what words mean, let alone
science.

>
> So really, what would you lose, Darwinists?

First, shithead, we're not "Darwinists." That you just blither
stupidly like any creationist does indicates how fucked in the head
anti-evolutionists typically become.

 I would never mandate
> that your children not be taught evolution;

Oh, gee, like it's a religion.

Here's a thought, mindfuck--religious instruction is rather simple and
easy to effect, while teaching science is the job of schools. I
realize that you want everyone to be a deluded moron like yourself,
but others have higher aspirations for kids.

>
> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no

> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

Why should they get an education, seems to be your question. Why
teach algebra when few ever use it? Oh right, you don't hate that
knowledge, just certain biologic information.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

[Glen Davidson]

<snip>

> Please tell me why it's so important to you that people possessing no
> education beyond a high school diploma should be forced to learn
> evolution.

One more thing--there is no US mandate that evolution must be taught,
as it is neither a tenet of religion nor of atheism. What is
disallowed are laws that prohibit the teaching of evolution to further
a religious agenda, and laws that mandate the teaching of creationism
(or do if evolution is taught), which is necessarily done in order to
advance theology, or at least an ideology.

So there's no particular reason why evolution couldn't be banned from
pre-collegiate education--if you could find a meaningful secular
reason to do so. Of course you can't, you just have your mindless
religious/spiritual prejudices, hence you immediately run afoul of the
1st Amendment.

And obviously there are many people who lack a good understanding of
evolution who do very well in life. They do not, however, generally
excel at understanding biology, which happens to be taught in most
schools because it is quite relevant to humans as biologic organisms.
It's also a fact that people would do well to understand evolution for
issues like antibiotic resistance (only the dishonesty of creationism
carves this away from the continuity of all of evolution, of which it
is a part), but also in order to understand the weakness of the backs
of bipedal organisms that evolved from quadrupeds, the rather low (not
necessarily zero function, but nothing like what occurred in our
ancestors) functionality of gooseflesh, the creationism-senseless
descent of the testes, and the remnant of our ancestral tail, the
coccyx (often broken in labor). That we can even kill many micro-
organisms using chemicals is a function of our evolutionary distance
from them, yet the fact that all life shares a common ancestor also
seems to explain fairly well how parasites evolve readily enough.

Of course an obvious reason to teach evolution is simply to answer
questions, like why do we have all of these peculiar relationships
between different lineages, yet important differences? If you really
don't want to know, clearly you can remain as stupid as you are about
it, while people less resistant to truth often enjoy learning factual
information instead of myths. Some creationists might at least like
to know the basis of evolution whatever their beliefs are, although
clearly most want no knowledge about it and would like to keep others
from learning it as well.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

[SkyEyes]

On May 13, 1:41 pm, Will in New Haven

Well, I've written a limerick or two in my life. ;-P

In truth, sir, you do me too much honor. <Blush>

Brenda

[SkyEyes]

I thought about it, but figured that would be more appropriate on
alt.atheism (I try, with mixed success, to work to a higher standard
here).

Thanks for all the nominations, everyone!

Brenda

[SkyEyes]

On May 13, 11:05 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:38:52 AM UTC+1, Garamond Lethe wrote:

> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:12:55 -0700, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > > Nominated for Post of the Month.
>

> > Seconded.
>
> I assume that "seemless" should be "seamless".

Gak. Don't tell my English professors, should any of them still be
alive.

Brenda