Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by ericv00


1. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163671 by ericv00 on April 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Did God create the universe? Did aliens create the universe? Did the universe just...exist, always?

Nobody explores the best sci-fi option there is! Maybe WE will create the universe far in the future, when we have the technology to do so. We could go back in time to the first moment in time, and start the creation of the universe. Maybe complex things DID create the universe AND came late in its creation.

Feel free to use this for a sci-fi story, as long as it is GOOD for a change. And thank me in the credits. Ask me where to mail the royalty checks. :)

2. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163186 by ericv00 on April 18, 2008 at 3:55 am

I don't see what the big problem is. Accepting the Stork Theory doesn't have to conflict with Sex. Maybe storks are just what Sex used to make us.

I have many friends where Sex is a big part of their life, yet they can fully accept that storks are how we got here.

3. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162231 by ericv00 on April 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

black wolf,
"I still don't really get it. I do understand that this change is another attempt to wedge creationIDsim into science classrooms, but how can it do that? The legislation clearly speaks of scientific information, which ID and creationism are not."

Look closely at the proposed legislation.

"allow teachers to 'present scientific information relevant to the FULL RANGE OF VIEWS on biological and chemical evolution.'"

"full range of views" essentially means opinion. Kent Hovinds "views" on the formation of the polar ice caps is an "ice comet" that broke in two, each piece landing on the opposite ends of the Earth. He even uses VERY faulty scientific principles to give his ideas the slightest air of plausibility (though he fails miserably). But is that appropriate in science class? No. The legislation opens the science curriculum to this kind of nonsense. The creationists are using much more devious methods to undermine science, rather than attack it head on and push creationism directly.