COVID vaccine works - we're saved!

Or obey speed limits or other traffic signs and laws. Or refuse to have the government take away from their freedom to drive on whichever side of the road they feel like -- the red shine of those lane reflectors sure look pretty when you're driving against the traffic.

Isn't that more indicative of Norwegian cuisine?I'm remembering particularly a new Mexican restaurant that opened in 1982 next to the Columbia Mall in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Now mind you that a lot of Norwegian immigrants had settled there. I had a wet burrito that was completely covered by a quarter-inch layer of green chili. Absolutely no flavor, completely bland!Similarly, for many years the town only had one Mexican restaurant. Rumor had it that early on they couldn't get any tortillas, so they would use lefse instead (Norwegian potato flatbread).-- it's no longer there, but it looks like they've moved so I'll not give the name.

Speaking of Italian food, Stanley Tucci has a show, Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy, in which he visits different regions of Italy and samples the food of those regions.Last night the show covered the Italian region of London. After WWI, a lot of Italians emigrated to England -- almost an entire village in Emilia-Romagna ended up in southern Wales. London's Little Italy was closed down during WWII with all military age Italian men being interned (like we did with our Japanese-Americans except we locked up entire families), but it has come back strong. England has certainly come a long way since the BBC's Spaghetti Tree Hoax of 01 April 1957.It makes one wonder how Italian food in London differs from Italian food in the US. Most Italian food in the US is modifications of what Italian dishes because a lot of basic ingredients could not be found; eg, no eggplant but meat was much more plentiful and cheaper so eggplant parmesan became chicken/veal parm. And spaghetti and meatballs? Mixing il primo con il secondo? What changes were needed in London? Or in Argentina? I forget where that is in Latin America, but one treat is ñoqui, which is Italian gnocchi.And FWIW, the most favorite German dish is supposed to be spaghetti alla Bolognese (though in Italy spaghetti is too narrow for such a meaty sauce).

Doctor Who, "11th Hour": "You're Scottish. Fry something!"In a tea shop in Inverary there were several fried items on display, including a large sausage looking thing. I didn't dare ask.

Over a foot and a half long? Cross section with a diameter of at least 4 inches? One helluva Mars bar!

And don't you just hate it when, like for decades with those urban legends, the teller claims to be reporting something that a close relative or close friend had actually seen.Le plus ça change, le plus la même chose.

Then why didn't you study evolution? Everything you have written tells us that you never learned anything about the subject.Or did you "learn" it from creationists? If so, then you must realize that creationists lie! They have to lie, because they believe that reality disproves their god, which forces their entire position to be disproving reality. Why would evolution refute your belief in God? Why would you even think that could be the case?For that matter, why would you think that evolution or any other scientific idea would have anything to do with any religion, let alone yours? You are making absolutely no sense there!The only explanations I can think of for your confusion would be that you hold false ideas; eg:

1. You think that evolution is something entirely different from what it actually is.
2. Your religious beliefs include requirements that reality not be as it actually is (eg, young earth, men having one rib less than women, etc).

Or some combination thereof. Compounding the problems of such false ideas is that they are de rigueur in those religious communities that foolishly base their faith on false creationist theology.So then does your faith place such requirements on you such that you must misunderstand evolution? Does that mean that you make the typical creationist mistake of confusing evolution and abiogenesis? Or mistakenly thinking that evolution depends on abiogenesis or, even worse, that abiogenesis depends on evolution?Evolution depends on replication/reproduction and therefore could play no role in abiogenesis until the candidates for proto-life could replicate. Similarly, evolution is an integral part of life and living populations, so regardless of how life got started it would evolve. Evolution still happens whether life arose through natural processes or by being poofed magically into existence. Doch! (German for negating a negative assertion; can be translated as "Oh yes they are!")Biologists are indeed doing their job. It's biology educators who had failing to properly educate their students in biology. That failure is due to a number of factors including:

• Inadequate training. Not all biology teachers have been educated in the subject themselves. In many school districts, teachers are assigned to teach classes in subjects in which they have received no training, thus making them heavily dependent on the textbook.
  ​
  For example, my younger son's jr. high biology teacher was the home-ec teacher; his fellow students kept coming to him with their questions because he knew more than the teacher did.
  ​
  Another example was John Peloza whose academic background was Physical Education (PE) with a Bachelor's in PE and an MS Education with a disertation on coaching softball. He was hired to teach on Santa Catalina Island where he ended up teaching biology, which he parlayed into teaching high school biolgy in San Juan Capistrano. Fellow teachers knew that he had taken the bare minimum biology classes in college and, having heard him give a presentation, I identified everything that he had to say about biology as coming straight from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the creators of "creation science".
  ​
  Ironically, John Scopes was also a PE teacher. He volunteered to provide the ACLU with a test case against the Tennessee "monkey law" (the Butler Act, 1925) by giving a guest lecture that mentioned the "e-word" (evolution).
  ​
• Most textbooks are sub-standard and filled with errors. This is both because textbooks are written by professional textbook writers instead of by experts in the subject matter, and also because of pressure on the publishers by special-interest groups (in this case creationists).
  ​
  A case in point was in the late 1980's when California was looking for a new high school biology textbook. Bill Bennetta of The Textbook League recruited a panel of biologists to review the candidate books. That panel found none of the books to be acceptable since they were riddled with errors and misconceptions, all of which they listed in their report. The state board gave that list to the least offender who made a few corrections, after which the board approved their book behind the scientists' backs. The biology classes still ended up being taught errors and misconceptions instead of biology.
  ​
  We should note that at least in college the textbooks are written by experts in the subject matter, but the damage is already done for those who do not take biology in college. An additional wrinkle was reported by Dr. Eugenie Scott, PhD Biological Anthropology and former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). She reported that many colleges and universities do not teach evolution to their biology undergrads (hopefully, that is corrected for the postgrads, but she didn't mention that).
  ​
• The creationist crusade against biology education.

Sadly, you demonstrate yet again your complete and utter ignorance and stupidity. You cannot even begin to explain why you hold such stupid misconceptions about evolution, so you revert immediately into regurgitation mode. What a fucking idiot you are!But why restrict your moronic anger to evolution when so many other scientific ideas pose just as much danger to your silly religious ideas?You may as well question gravity since it eliminates the need to deploy angels to move the planets in their orbits? Gravity eliminates the angels!Or ballistics which eliminate the need to assign a demon to ride on each bullet and cannon ball in order to guide it to its target?Or that major offense against God, static electricity (especially static electricity!), which led to Ben Franklin inventing the infernal lightning rod which renders impotent the Finger of God and hence renders God Himself impotent to smite down sinners. In short, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Creation, so there is no reason at all why evolution could possibly "refute" one's belief in God. None whatsoever.Unless one believes really stupid things about God. Which obviously you do. And which you are too afraid to even think about.How pathetic!