Comments by BaldySlaphead

Comment #208520 by BaldySlaphead on July 11, 2008 at 2:15 am

Where do her religious rights to object stop? Is she now entitled to refuse to marry a couple because God reveals to her that they're unlikely to stay married for very long?

Mental decision.

2. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208096 by BaldySlaphead on July 10, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Email sent, with pleasure.

3. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #197968 by BaldySlaphead on June 23, 2008 at 2:37 am

Bum - Carlin was very funny and thought provoking, and I have a lot of respect for his work.

Would it be desperately inappropriate to say "s___, p___, f___, c___, c___sucker, motherf___ker, and t__s" if I censored them..?

4. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188391 by BaldySlaphead on June 4, 2008 at 3:25 am

Surely a better criticism of Expelled's use of 'Imagine' is that they appear not to understand the lyrics.

The bit they use in the film is:

"Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too"

In context, that's:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

So, er, Lennon isn't suggesting we should imagine how the removal of religion would result in no killing and nothing to die for, he's saying one of two possible things, dependant on whether one believes the first and third lines of each stanza are connected:

1)imagine a world without countries - there'd be nothing to kill or die for, oh, and while yer at it, *also* imagine no religion.

Or

2)imagine a world without countries, then imagine having nothing to kill or die for,and *also* imagine no religion.

In either case, the 'and' makes it clear they're obviously independent statements.

How unlike Creationists to misuse and misunderstand what a quote's actually saying, eh?

5. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #185109 by BaldySlaphead on May 27, 2008 at 1:49 am

What are the chances of Mel Gibson starring as a woad-covered Wallace and bellowing, 'They'll never take our evolution!' in an unconvincing Welsh accent..?

6. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183477 by BaldySlaphead on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 am

And the frogamander in the same day - suck it, God.

"All in all it's just a-nother brick in the wall..."

7. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182892 by BaldySlaphead on May 21, 2008 at 5:11 am

"One thing though - do we know he is an atheist? 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.' Sounds to me that the 'not' is superfluous, unless you distinguish 'real' from 'dodgy' religions!"

It's irrelevant really, isn't it? Scientology is a dangerous cult and this summons is inept and stupifyingly inane regardless of this chap's wider views on religion.

8. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182838 by BaldySlaphead on May 21, 2008 at 3:10 am

Not sure this is a smoking gun, but there certainly appears to be some suspcious cordite burns on P.C. Copper's shirt...

"It began with tea and biscuits for constables at the police cordon after the July 7 terrorist attacks, progressed to lunches with senior officers and continues with regular invitations to gala nights and jive concerts.
The Church of Scientology appears to be involved in an effort to woo officers from the City of London police - an unlikely partnership perhaps, but one that seems to be blossoming. Details of how more than 20 officers, from constables to chief superintendents, have been invited to a series of engagements by the scientologists over the last 15 months have been revealed by a freedom of information inquiry by the Guardian."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomofinformation.religion

9. Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

Comment #154379 by BaldySlaphead on April 3, 2008 at 6:47 am

They don't accept speciation as the benchmark of what counts as "macro" evolution, they'll claim what you've got is still a bunch of stick insects and when you've seen them evolve into a cow they'll accept that "macro" evolution has occurred.

And even if you proved that, then they'd whine, 'Ah, well, there isn't even a proper definition of a species anyway...' as though this means something.

10. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145089 by BaldySlaphead on March 17, 2008 at 8:32 am

I could get depressed about this - it is depressing that this feeble shite is getting into our schools and our children - but I'm not going to.

I'm going to fight it instead.

First thing we need is knowledge. I'm off to draw my plans.

11. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122248 by BaldySlaphead on February 5, 2008 at 2:15 am

I listened to this on the way into work this morning, and it was all I could do not to burst out laughing at the feeble and old arguments being made by Simmonds.

It's a credit to websites like this, and the work of Professors Dawkins (and, I hope, not a backhanded compliment) that I was able to pre-empt what aspects of Simmonds' 'arguments' Prof Myers would respond to, and what he would say - minus the considerable expertise and knowledge the Prof Myers obviously has, and I do not.

Anyway, consider my consciousness very much raised from a few years ago when I saw an article in a local Elim church rag that challenged evolution in such a way that I knew it must be bogus, but didn't have the skills or knowledge to debate.