This is scary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3635794.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3635794.stm)

Serbia's education minister has ordered schools to stop teaching the theory of evolution for the current school year, a leading newspaper has reported.

The paper, Glas Javnosti, quoted Ljiljana Colic as saying that in future Charles Darwin's theory would only be taught alongside creationism.

Ms Colic said the two theories were equally dogmatic.

Correspondents say the move shocked educators in a republic where religion only recently began to be taught.

Ms Colic said current material on evolution would remain in textbooks but would not be taught.

It was not clear how the ban would be enforced in schools.

Biologist Nikola Tucic described the ruling as "outrageous", and showed Serbia's Orthodox Church was interfering in politics.

"We are slowly turning into a theocratic state and in the 21st Century we are going back to the Book of Revelations," he told the newspaper.

"There were attempts like this in several US states, but they were rejected. It turns out that our fundamentalists are much more successful."

Creationism is the belief that the Old Testament account of God's creation of the world is true. Darwin's theory of evolution is the dominant explanation of man's origins within the scientific community.

That's the spirit!

Serbia's gonna rise again!


Petr

Creationism and Darwinism as preached post Darwin are both incorrect.

Creationism is wrong on its face to non religious fanatics, the problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory is it does not explain "the arrival of the fittest" adequately. Isolated random genetic mutations that happen to be beneficial leading to the upward surge of life on this planet from amino acids to humans and all species of the animal kingdom has about the same probability as a series of great tornados picking up debris and assembling all the building of New York City.

What do you know, Otto is showing signs of clear-headed thinking.

Watch out now. Before you even know it, you will realize just how baseless the "scientific" case for materialism is.

And of course there is nothing wrong with fanaticism PER SE.


Petr

Creationism is a complete joke, while evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

Furthermore, science IS materialistic by definition. Science seeks to provide naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena. Any explanation involving "supernatural" elements is NOT science and has NO business being taught as such.

Facts are stubborn things, and concrete facts are especially obstinate. Here's a sample of proof (to any rational person) that human beings evolved from apes:

http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/evoldiag.jpg

This doesn't surprise me much. The country skipped Renaissance, no wonder they have such animosity toward exact natural science.

Angler, you've posted pictures of skulls of various hominid animals. It is simply data which is consistent with a hypothesis. No one has ever observed the process of inter-species evolution. No one can explain the gap between, say, habilis and erectus. There should be hundreds of subtly changing skulls in the fossil record but they're not there. No one can explain why chimpanzees have stayed chimpanzees. There are several prominent examples of erroneous carbon dating. Biologists are perplexed at the impossible odds against the emergence of complex hydrocarbons.

BTW, there is no Heidelberg skull. What was discovered was a heavy jawbone.

It's not an issue I've researched in any depth, so perhaps you can answer these questions conclusively.

Angler, you've posted pictures of skulls of various hominid animals. It is simply data which is consistent with a hypothesis. No one has ever observed the process of inter-species evolution. No one can explain the gap between, say, habilis and erectus. There should be hundreds of subtly changing skulls in the fossil record but they're not there. No one can explain why chimpanzees have stayed chimpanzees. There are several prominent examples of erroneous carbon dating. Biologists are perplexed at the impossible odds against the emergence of complex hydrocarbons.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
If the evolution theory has unknown and yet undiscovered areas, supernatural explanation of creation is of one huge gap from scientific standpoint.

- "If the evolution theory has unknown and yet undiscovered areas, ..."


No, Zvaci.

The doctrine of spontaneous evolution of all life is not a theory that has holes in it. It is a bunch of holes with some hypothetical scraps of empirical evidence attached to them.


Petr

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
If the evolution theory has unknown and yet undiscovered areas, supernatural explanation of creation is of one huge gap from scientific standpoint.

I don't dispute that and never have. But to believe in random evolution as fact requires as much a leap of faith.

Why is science mutually exclusive (even hostile, like a vampire confronted with garlic) of a Creator or, if you like, creative force?

As a matter of fact, I have read letters by physicists and mathematicians who say they have converted to theism because of their work in quantum physics. I'll try and track some things down. I'll also try to track down the article posted here re: hydrocarbons.

- "Why is science mutually exclusive ..."


Never, EVER allow evolutionists get away with this self-congratulatory definition of "science-as-the-antithesis-of-religion", Steam.

It was men with "creationist" mindset that CREATED the Western science as we know it, and it was ingrateful Endarkenment "philosophes" that ravaged their inheritance.


Petr

- "If the evolution theory has unknown and yet undiscovered areas, ..."


No, Zvaci.

The doctrine of spontaneous evolution of all life is not a theory that has holes in it. It is a bunch of holes with some hypothetical scraps of empirical evidence attached to them.


Petr

Your post proved my point Petr. Where is the empirical evidence God created man on the seventh day from mud? We know already that species can mutate, its a genetic fact. Bunch of holes is still something more concrete than one huge dogmatic black hole enforced by stubbornness.

Your post proved my point Petr. Where is the empirical evidence God created man on the seventh day from mud? We know already that species can mutate, its a genetic fact. Bunch of holes is still something more concrete than one huge dogmatic black hole enforced by stubbornness.
You are wrong. Pink elephants on Pluto created mankind. ;-)

I don't dispute that and never have. But to believe in random evolution as fact requires as much a leap of faith.

Why is science mutually exclusive (even hostile, like a vampire confronted with garlic) of a Creator or, if you like, creative force?

As a matter of fact, I have read letters by physicists and mathematicians who say they have converted to theism because of their work in quantum physics. I'll try and track some things down. I'll also try to track down the article posted here re: hydrocarbons.

I'm not assaulting religion here, since I'm a faithful to Roman Catholicism to a degree of fanaticism, but like Angler I object to the interfering of the religious explanations into methods of natural science.

- "Where is the empirical evidence God created man on the seventh day from mud?"


In the revealed Word of God. You are of course free to disagree, at least while you are still in this world.

and it was dust, not mud ("ashes to ashes, dust to dust"...)


Genesis 2:7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Petr

In the revealed Word of God.

Pharisees (Jews) follow the "Word of God". Christians follow Christ (God).

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." - JOHN 14:16

Genesis 2:7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

http://kabbalahclub.com/prevarticles/golem.html

Yeah, that "the Golem" legend DOES prove that some megalomaniacal Talmudic rabbis thought to possess powers greater than their "HaShem" himself.


Petr

It is simply data which is consistent with a hypothesis.
Real science, by contrast, comes down from the mountain inscribed on tablets of stone.

:|

"Simply data consistent with a hypothesis?" That, sir, is precisely what all science is: we observe novel phenomena, construct ideas to explain them, and then test predictions derived from these ideas against reality. Each time the idea's predictions match up with our observations of reality, it becomes more firmly established. All the great concepts of modern science, from relativity to quantum electrodynamics to the woodward-hoffmann rules via the central dogma of biology ("DNA makes RNA makes proteins," for what it's worth) are nothing more and nothing less than someone's hypotheses and the experimental data supporting them. They stand out as being the foundations of a great many other ideas and because the body of data on which they rest is so substantial as to render their eventual fall seem hugely improbable.


the problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory is it does not explain "the arrival of the fittest" adequately
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't set out to, at least assuming that by "the arrival of the fittest" you mean the origins of life itself. Abiogenesis is not evolution and evolution is not abiogenesis, mmmmkay? Criticising evolutionary theory for not explaining the origins of life is like criticising plate tectonics for failing to do the same thing. If, on the other hand, you mean you consider the possibility of the occurence of spontaneous development of beneficial traits to be intrinsically implausible, then I'm afraid you'll simply have to accept that it happens:


Jennifer L. Seffernick and Lawrence P. Wackett, Rapid Evolution of Bacterial Catabolic Enzymes: A Case Study with Atrazine Chlorohydrolase, Biochemistry 40, 43, pp. 12747 - 12753, October 2001

The chlorinated herbicide atrazine was once considered
to be poorly biodegraded in soils...Starting in 1993,
however, numerous bacteria were ascertained
to initiate atrazine metabolism via a hydrolytic
dechlorination reaction [jonny: atrazine was first introduced in 1958].
More recently, the genes encoding the chlorohydrolase have been shown to be
essentially identical in different genera of bacteria independently
isolated from four continents by different researchers.
This suggests that the ability to dechlorinate atrazine
arose since the introduction of atrazine and that this
phenotype spread quickly around the globe...Perhaps the best
evidence that atzA is a recently evolved
gene derives from its relationship with genes identified for
the catabolism of melamine, or 2,4,6-triamino-1,3,5-triaizine.
Melamine is an industrial product used since the early 1900s.
Melamine was considered nonbiodegradable in the 1930s but
was then reclassified as slightly biodegradable in the 1960s
when atrazine was first introduced (43). Today, it is
considered to be readily biodegradable in soil... The
first two metabolic reactions are sequential
hydrolytic deamination reactions catalyzed by the same
enzyme, melamine deaminase (TriA). The triA gene has
recently been cloned and sequenced. The protein shows a
remarkable identity to atrazine chlorohydrolase from Pseudomonas
sp. ADP; it is the same in 466 of 475 amino acids
(Figure 4) (45). It is also unusual that the nine nucleotide
differences between triA and atzA give rise to these nine
amino acid changes. The small number of changes and the
absence of silent mutations are consistent with an intense
selective pressure operating over a short evolutionary time
period (46, 47). The kcat/Km of atrazine chlorohydrolase with
atrazine is 1.5  104 s-1 M-1 per subunit. In our most recent
study, the deamination activity of this enzyme was found to
be undetectable (48). Melamine deaminase, however, exhibits
the opposite specificity. It catalyzes deamination reactions
at rates comparable to dechlorination rates of atrazine
chlorohydrolase. Moreover, it shows dechorination activity
2 orders of magnitude lower than the deamination activity
with comparable triazine substrates. In total, these data
suggest that the nine amino acid changes represent a short
evolutionary trajectory between the two activities.


Why is science mutually exclusive (even hostile, like a vampire confronted with garlic) of a Creator or, if you like, creative force?
It's not. It simply doesn't privilege the concept above other possibilities. If someone thinks a Creator is responsible for any given phenomenon, the scientific community simply asks that he provide data supporting his contention, exactly as it would of anyone advancing a more mundane explanation. To date, no one has (to my knowledge) provided solid empirical evidence for the existence of a deity, never mind of anything he/she/it may have done.

I must admit that I am intrigued by some of the objections raised. Perhaps those who consider evolution implausible would be so good as to help me out by briefly explaining evolutionary theory as they understand it?

It was men with "creationist" mindset that CREATED the Western science as we know it, and it was ingrateful Endarkenment "philosophes" that ravaged their inheritance.

Ranting - counterfactual ranting, at that. I would insult you if necessary, Petr, but it is sufficient to point out your record on this board. You go to some length (quoting Bacon) to link science to Christianity, and then when confronted with science, reject it vehemently, while at the same time claiming that it has its roots in Christianity.

"Creation" science will not provide a basis for stem cell research or even much medicine. Evolutionary science does.

Even Augustine was unconvinced by the Jewish fairy stories you so esteem, Petr:

http://www.bible.ca/H-Darwin.htm

408 AD Augustine "With the Scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the Scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 2:9).

408 AD Augustine "Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 4:27).

There: you couldn't have it from a better source. Like yourself, Augustine was a hateful monster, his mind ruined by bad Jewish books. Nonetheless, he fits your criteria - that of "creating the West" (or do you deny this?). However, he still had enough common sense that survived his encounter with Jewish "holy books" that he could see that reason and the physical world would sometimes diverge, on which account he advised persons like youself to shut up and stick to "admonitions, accounts, and predictions" and also to realize that real days, while "recalling" the days of creation, do so without "being really similar to them in any way".

On this, hang the laws and the prophets.

Wintermute

What do you know, Otto is showing signs of clear-headed thinking.

I don't believe in creationism either Pete.

As a matter of fact, I have read letters by physicists and mathematicians who say they have converted to theism because of their work in quantum physics.

Tell the whole truth, ST: they converted to Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or some form of Jungian Psychology.

BTW: are you sure you're an Episcopalian?

WM

Tell the whole truth, ST: they converted to Taoism, Buddhism

Generally yes. Quantum physics certainly doesn't hurt Lao Tzu.

Quantum physics certainly doesn't hurt Lao Tzu.

Chapter One of Raymond Blakney's translation:

There are ways but the Way is uncharted;
There are names but not nature in words:
Nameless indeed is the source of creation
But things have a mother and she has a name.
The secret waits for the insight
Of eyes unclouded by longing;
Those who are bound by desire
See only the outward container.

These two come paired but distinct
By their names.
Of all things profound,
Say that their pairing is deepest,
The gate to the root of the world.

You have to look at a # of translations, because there is always the odd thing( in some more then others) in each that makes no sense even after contemplation to really get it.

I wish I was a better Taoist... in childhood I picked up too much of a "law of the jungle" outlook...

- "Where is the empirical evidence God created man on the seventh day from mud?"

In the revealed Word of God.Where is your evidence that the Bible is "the revealed word of God," rather than merely a creation of men? Let's see it. (And no, getting the "warm fuzzies" while reading the Bible in no way constitutes evidence, since devout Muslims feel the same way when reading the Koran, etc.)

The problem with so many Christians is that they believe that their mere insistence that the Bible is God's Word has some kind of merit. It doesn't. Merely insisting that something is true, or just desperately wanting for it to be true, does not make it true.

If God wants to communicate with men, He can do it without any help from a book. Certainly any Being who created the universe is smart enough to have known that simply having people write a book on His behalf -- a book filled with inconsistencies and implausibilities, no less -- would be a very ineffective way of convincing anyone who is, shall we say, less than trusting of his fellow men.

I know, for a FACT, that for millenia some men have falsely claimed to speak and write on God's behalf. I have NO evidence, however, that God has ever actually spoken to any man. Therefore, my skepticism about the Bible is perfectly justified. If a God exists and is intelligent and just, then He understands this. Furthermore, the idea that a loving and good God would condemn a person for nothing more than unflinching honesty -- and that's what my doubts about the Bible are based on -- is highly contradictory.

Angler, you've posted pictures of skulls of various hominid animals. It is simply data which is consistent with a hypothesis. No one has ever observed the process of inter-species evolution.Neither has anyone ever observed the interior of the sun, but that doesn't make us any less certain that nuclear reactions in the sun's core are what fuel its burning.


No one can explain the gap between, say, habilis and erectus. There should be hundreds of subtly changing skulls in the fossil record but they're not there.That's simply because they haven't been found yet. Fossils are not easy to locate, particularly in good condition. Nevertheless, what has been found fits the theory of evolution extremely well. What's particularly telling is the fact that predictions of new fossil finds have been made based on evolutionary theory, only to be eventually found correct.


No one can explain why chimpanzees have stayed chimpanzees.Evolution does not claim that chimps became men. That's a common misconception. What is claimed is that chimps and men came from a common ancestor.


There are several prominent examples of erroneous carbon dating.I'm not familiar with those examples; but anyway, a few mistakes don't make the method intrinsically unreliable. Just because some people use rulers incorrectly doesn't mean that rulers are useless. Carbon dating has proven itself to be highly useful by cross-checking its results with those of alternative dating methods (e.g., those based on studies of sediment layers).


Biologists are perplexed at the impossible odds against the emergence of complex hydrocarbons.The odds aren't impossible at all. Give this a read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/08/08/nmar708.html


BTW, there is no Heidelberg skull. What was discovered was a heavy jawbone.Okay. I'm not familiar with that case. But anyway, the evidence for evolution, however fragmented it might be at this relatively early date, is one hell of a lot more convincing than the evidence for creationism (which is nonexistent).

If I asked you to complete the following number series:

2, 4, __, 8, 10, __, 14, __, 18, __, 22, 24, __, 28, ...

then I doubt you'd engage in laborious calculations in order to make the numbers in the blanks fit some preconceived model. You'd simply note that the series is consistent with the set of all even numbers greater than 0. Well this analogy applies perfectly to the evolution debate. Those who don't want to believe in evolution because it contradicts the Bible indulge in every kind of laborious rationalization in an attempt to make the observed evidence fit the Bible. Evolutionists, unhampered by any religious or other emotional bias, simply take the evidence at face value. They assume that the blanks are even numbers because that is by far the best available explanation for what is observed.

It's worth remembering that Biblical fundamentalists are almost exclusively in the business of attacking evolution, as opposed to other well-established scientific theories like quantum mechanics (which, in spite of all its successes, is not without its own problems). Why? Simply because evolution contradicts the Bible. Fundamentalists have already made up their minds and don't wish to be confused by the facts. If the Bible didn't have a story (or stories) of creation, then today's fundamentalists would accept evolution just as wholeheartedly as everyone else.

Biologists are perplexed at the impossible odds against the emergence of complex hydrocarbons.

The odds aren't impossible at all. Give this a read:
In response to both of you.

Even if The Miller/Urey experiments (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html) did account for the origin of amino acids( despite the inadequacies in the experiment its nothing too improbable) it didn't adequately explain how that developed into a cell to multicelled organisms etc.

Its just too improbable from a standpoint of orthodox Darwinian evolution and since more complex life is in fact at a higher order of matter seemingly flies in the face of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. While Im not a creationist, nor do I believe there is an invisible man in the sky actively intervening to create life our current understanding of evolution is inadequate to explain "the origin of species".

- "I don't believe in creationism either Pete."

I know. Step by step. Salami tactic. You know.


Petr

- "...and then when confronted with science, reject it vehemently, ..."


When are you going to get to your skull that you pagans and materialists do NOT have monopoly or copyright for the practice of "science"?

I reject wild speculations and dogmatic presuppositions of philosophical materialism masquerading as empirical science, if that's what you mean.

Otherwise, science is just a fine part of this God-created, man-spoiled world of ours.



- ""Creation" science will not provide a basis for stem cell research or even much medicine."

ALL science and "laws of nature" are dependent on the concept of Allmighty Creator God, whether this is admitted by men or not.

If we were to depend for pagan systems of thought, we would be still believe in the Aristotelian doctrine of four basic elements.


- "Evolutionary science does."

Just WHAT great achievements has "evolutionary science" made, except making excuses for its own existence?


Petr

When are you going to get to your skull that you pagans and materialists do NOT have monopoly or copyright for the practice of "science"?

Whoa, hold your horses! Pope and the Church declared evolution to be fact - "TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH!":

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/darwin.htm

The ones who oppose the principle of fate to principles of science are backward schismatic and Judeo-'Christian' sects.

Ever get the feeling you're talking to a brick wall?

otto:

Its just too improbable from a standpoint of orthodox Darwinian evolution and since more complex life is in fact at a higher order of matter seemingly flies in the face of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
"The entropy of the Universe increases in spontaneous processes" does not preclude decreases in the entropy of a system within the Universe. Ever wondered how crystals grow out of solutions? How complex structures like the internal organs are formed from simple things like amino acids and so on? For what it's worth, while no one claims to have a complete description of how life could have arisen from a primeval soup, there are a some interesting ideas - Kauffman's autocatalytic sets spring to mind.
And what exactly is "a higher order of matter" when it's at home?



Petr:
"Where is the empirical evidence God created man on the seventh day from mud?"


In the revealed Word of God. You are of course free to disagree, at least while you are still in this world.
Do you even know what the word 'empirical' means?


I'd like to repeat my earlier request: would otto, Petr, and SST be so kind as to detail, in brief (a paragraph or two would be perfectly sufficient), the theory of evolution as they understand it?

Angler, you've posted pictures of skulls of various hominid animals. It is simply data which is consistent with a hypothesis. No one has ever observed the process of inter-species evolution. No one can explain the gap between, say, habilis and erectus. There should be hundreds of subtly changing skulls in the fossil record but they're not there. No one can explain why chimpanzees have stayed chimpanzees. There are several prominent examples of erroneous carbon dating. Biologists are perplexed at the impossible odds against the emergence of complex hydrocarbons.

BTW, there is no Heidelberg skull. What was discovered was a heavy jawbone.

It's not an issue I've researched in any depth, so perhaps you can answer these questions conclusively.

How do you explain my bones?

I'd like to repeat my earlier request: would otto, Petr, and SST be so kind as to detail, in brief (a paragraph or two would be perfectly sufficient), the theory of evolution as they understand it?

The basic elements spontaneously and randomly organized themselves into increasingly complex compounds. The jump was then made from matter to cellular organisms and then, to multi-cellular organisms. Those organisms adequately adapted to their environment were able to pass on their genes thru reproduction while those organisms not adequately adapted to the environment would not be able to pass on their genes.

The problems are the jumps from matter to organism and from one species to another, all allegedly in a spontaneous, random fashion. Again, in the absence of observation, it will always remain theory. The inter-species jumps, as I understand the theory, are explained by random mutations, which contradicts everything we know about genetics. It is roughly equivalent to expecting mankind to evolve gills because after billions of years of submerging every firstborn child in water at birth, the ones whose genetic code had mutated to provide functional gills were thereby isolated.

Many thanks, SST. If you've no objection, I'll wait a little longer to see if otto and Petr care to provide their definitions as well so I can post a single response rather than drips and drops.

SST is more articulate then I, and described the overall problem well. Ill( im not a biology or biochemistry major so Ill acknowledge I could be wrong) go into more technical details.

Orthodox Darwinian evolutionary theory on the origin of species holds that random mutations are occasionally beneficial( true enough) and that the competive advantage( they are less likely to be naturally selected for death) held by those with the superior mutation leads to their propagation throughout the species.

The problem is completely random mutations strike single individuals and are highly highly highly unlikely to strike others within the species at the same time... Within the evolutionary framework of advanced animal life that reproduces due to sexual reproduction, not enough of a sample population to propagate throughout the species without massive inbreeding( it could propagate this way through bacteria that reproduce through cell division).

Even if this worked as orthodox evolutionary theory would describe

An ammalagation of random mutations within a species, even if the genetic advantages did propagate... would be extremely unlikely to give rise to completely diffrent new species.

Females often choose total losers to be their mates.

Females often choose total losers to be their mates.
Not so relevant but thats why I'd reinstitute arranged marriages.

Females often choose total losers to be their mates.

Humans have developed a level of intelligence so sophisticated, they have devised systems which insulate people from the consequences of their actions. In many ways, we are devolving.

Rich, privileged people have less offspring than poor ones. More complicated organisms are more easily driven to extinction.

Someone once said:

"The infertility of the privileged is not just a problem for Darwinism. It is its refutation."


Petr

"The infertility of the privileged is not just a problem for Darwinism. It is its refutation."

The infertility of the privileged is a problem for social Darwinism, perhaps, or even for the future of our society, but it hardly challeges evolutionary theory.

Since infertile elites are quickly replaced by competing groups, it is in fact an excellent explanation of political volatility where it occurs.

There's also a cultural effect: we all know about the sons of great achievers. If they don't gamble the family fortune away, they should be accounted successes.

One of my favorite scenes in I, Claudius, which I recommend you all see, by the way, is where the Emperor Augustus is desperately trying to convince his nobles to marry and have children.

"And don't try that trick of marrying twelve year olds either - I can see right through that one!"

WM

One of my favorite scenes in I, Claudius, which I recommend you all see, by the way, is where the Emperor Augustus is desperately trying to convince his nobles to marry and have children.


Augustus really got portrayed as a big dumbass in that... using the twitching necked young Cladius as his example of a Roman child.

My favorite scene is where Tiberius is trying to figure out how to kill SeJanus...

Tiberius: She( Livilla) poisoned him with the help of Sejanus and they now plot to assasinate me

Caligula: People really are despicable