Academic Morons and Darwin

There is nothing wrong with being average and I think it's your perspective that causes you to think that it's negative traits.

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Xtrozero

And no one has mentioned the Catholics, who don't practice birth control.

I'm Catholic, my husband is Atheist.

We practice birth control, it's called abstinence.

We also used condoms prior, so please keep your overgeneralizations to yourself.

Lots of Catholics use contraception despite official doctrine.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: crayzeed

Go to answer 3, go to answer 3, go to answer 3.

Here is the problem: answer three is gibberish.

People with higher levels of education typically earn more. Its not vanity, its being paid for something of value, an advanced skill set. You know, capitalism. People with higher incomes and higher levels of education typically understand the cost of raising children, and consider that cost when making the decision to have or not have a large family. It is not vanity, it is conscience. A conscious thought process to determine whether or not, as parents, they can provide the kind of life they wish for their children.

The size of the family has no bearing on the degree of happiness whatsoever. If the parents can provide for two or three children but no more without sacrificing quality for quantity, the more educated among us will typically make the decision to stop at a number of children they can comfortably provide for. Lower intellects - not so much. Have another kid - get a raise from the government.

take the super collider for example.

and the brain power that went into that marval.

tell me how it's improved my life compared to the farmer.

originally posted by: Tarantula777
a reply to: VulcanWerks

I think both you and they misunderstand evolution terribly. Your post is full of holes and not very academic at all.
...
You belittle the humble. I tell you the meek are inheriting the earth. They are inheriting America right now. They are evolution. Observe them.

Nothing that you said even remotely applied to anything the one you were responding to said.

In groups/gangs, 'survival of the fittest' is just as applicable as it is individually. The strong have the best chance of survival. The weak... not so much.

This is precisely how species are made as strong as possible. It is the law of nature in action.

And no, simply acknowledging the law of nature and how it really, actually works, is not 'belittling the humble', it is simply speaking truth and facts.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Well if evolution were entirely true then survival of the fittest would mean people like Richard Dawkins would have been consumed long ago and their weak genes wouldn't have propagated.

originally posted by: sarahvital]

take the super collider for example.

and the brain power that went into that marval.

tell me how it's improved my life compared to the farmer.

I have an idea for a scientific experiment that will prove evolution in a speedy manner which we could all observe.

Lets drop Richard Dawkin off in his underwear with an isolated tribe in Africa, we can see what he does to survive and who is likely to breed with him.

It'll be like a new kind of reality TV show... will Richard's brain overcome the horde of brawn all around him?

Tune in next week to find out...