So what can be said about Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean it could not be said better than
Paraphrasing Baudelaire

“When you think of what [Australian] poetry was before [Dean ] appeared and what a rejuvenation it [will undergo] since his arrival when you imagine how significant it would have been if he had not appeared how many deep and mysterious feelings which have been put into words would have remained unexpressed how many intelligent minds he .. [will being into] … it is impossible not to consider him as one of those rare and providential minds who in the domain of [poetry] bring about the salvation of us all…”(“Victor Hugo Selected poems Brooks haxton Penguin Books 2002 p.xv)
with his groundbreaking poems who knows which new Baudelaire or Swinburne will appear

is baroque in style ...
“Deans poem challenge conventional notions of decorum by using and abusing such tropes and figures as metaphor, hyperbole, paradox, anaphora, hyperbaton, hypotaxis and parataxis, paronomasia, and oxymoron. Deans poems produce copia and variety and cultivates concordia discors and antithesis – Dean uses these strategies to produce allegory and conceit As said Deans poems are like
gold foil stitched with pink silk thread”

Hi you might be interested in Australia's leading erotic poet Magister colin leslie dean

...
All his poem...

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory.http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”-at the present time nothing has changed


2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit


3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie 4”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005” seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion as it is claimed the generation of new genes is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant

Fuck off Dean

jane wrote:hey come on lets hear your rational skepticism debunk
instead of trying to censor what you really cant debunk

jane wrote:You

Fuck off Dean

obviously you cant ope with the refutation-up set your consensus trance your sheeple consciousness
why just
lets us hear your rational skepticism debunk
instead of trying to censor what you really cant debunk