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 epeeist


1151. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139044 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 4:27 am

Comment #138205 by Geoff


Stat a new thread on here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46

You'll be made to feel very welcome.

You sent him there ;-)

Just one word, Calilasseia. Be afraid, be very afraid.

1152. Fleabytes

Comment #139031 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #139007 by Steve Zara


For computers, it doesn't. The company Sun Microsystems has a slogan: "the network IS the computer".

What interests me is what it would feel like to have some kind of "network" between two brains.

(Being able to share what it is like to have a "revelatory experience" would be useful)

But there is (now) a common, low level protocol that allows one machine to communicate with another. And of course it still doesn't necessarily work, what if I am talking telnet and you are talking ssh? Or you are ASCII and I am UTF-16? What if my machine is a 64 bit SPARC and your machine is a 32 bit i386?

Is it reasonable to assume that different brains process information in the same way? Would it be reasonable if we were discussing visual or olfactory information, but not auditory information that included language if the sender and receiver had different primary languages, or different language groups (e.g. a Romance language and Chinese).

What kind of protocol could we imagine that would allow interchange of information between two brains?

1153. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138972 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #138954 by wipeout

I ain't no willing to intervine any stupid argument on this web page, but i am really tempted when i see twisted minds or mindsets obsessed with sex and related swearing- they think this is an ace card to use against anybody who are against them, like me or schemezers or kringski or wooter guy. If these are scientific answers, then, I know nothing about science.

If wooter wanted to show how much better he is than us he would ignore all the expletives and simply answer the questions jon_sociologist posted and that I reframed to make them easier to answer point by point.

That is all that is wanted. We don't want to know that "god did this" and "god did that". What we want to know is how and when he did it with some evidence that substantiates the claims.

1154. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #138554 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm

It might be dead, but it certainly doesn't want to lie down - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/03/will-we-be-hear.html

1155. Fleabytes

Comment #138252 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #138226 by Peacebeuponme


- I don't think they are liars unless they state the opposite though - you can't lie by being silent.
You obviously weren't brought up a Catholic - sins of commission and sins of omission.

1156. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138206 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #138191 by wooter


You can talk to Darwin and Bertrand Russell who were looking for amino acids in the soup and when you find it, it is your turn again. By the way thank you for your very descriptive language of yourself and this web page features. Way to go. You are almost there to prove that E.T is not fact but only a vocabulary of foul language. By the way you live along with Mr Dawkins?


Wooter - you have asked questions, you have been given answers (at least some by a Ph.D. and post-doctorate level biologist). Now it is your turn. Please answer the questions in my reformulation of jon_socialist's post. You can find it here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2299,The-Salamanders-Tale,Richard-Dawkins-RodHullIAmHim,page4#136363

1157. Fleabytes

Comment #138127 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 1:09 am

Comment #138121 by LorienRyan


If you could extend it to include all the 'omni...'s' and make it succinct and catchy I'd be for it.

EDIT: or do a series, one for each 'omni'.

I would be for the latter. Keep each separate and focused, and do a follow up article tying the whole thing together at the end.

It would be too easy for detractors to lead discussion up side-shoots if you try to make too many points in a single article.

1158. Fleabytes

Comment #138124 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #138117 by MPhil


Say, what would you (directed at all) think of me combining, refining an expanding my posts on The impossibility of omnipotence

I for one would like to see this.

I think the time is coming where we can actually generate this kind of article internally, rather than needing to reference articles from elsewhere.

I don't mean to sound parochial, anything that is grist to the mill is welcome. But there is sufficient talent on the site to generate our own material. A means of collaboration (wiki?) might be useful to get things into shape initially.

1159. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138108 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 12:26 am

Comment #137804 by al-rawandi


2) Please do comment on the Constitution. I hope you, unlike retarded Jay, have actually read portions of the Bill of Rights. So do contribute...

I wouldn't dream of make a comment on the contents, I don't know enough about it.

The only thing I have wondered is whether the process for change is too rigid. You obviously don't want to make it too easy to change, but if it is overly difficult then is there a chance of it becoming irrelevant? Also, is there a chance of America becoming a "people of the book" in the same way some religiously based states are?

As for spelling - I use Firefox with the spell checker switched on. Works for me on Linux, I don't know whether this is possible for those of you running inferior operating systems.

Oh and Goldy - long ago I had to write an essay (like the rest of the group I was in) on chirality in molecular structures. I spelt "asymmetry" wrongly every time. Lecturer knocked a mark off for every misspelling. I, like many others in my class, got a negative mark.

1160. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137795 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #137739 by Diacanu


Fighting a tiger, that might mean something, y'know?

But even then, it's a critter with claws versus a guy with a gun.

Tiger doesn't have much chance really.

How about hunting boar the way they did in medieval times, with a boar spear. Even with the cross-bar on it you stood a good change of being gored if you didn't use it properly. That should add a bit more adrenaline.

Oh, and can I comment on the Constitution? Please, please, I'm English so you know I can add something relevant.

1161. Fleabytes

Comment #137786 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

2946. Comment #137777 by clodhopper


Oooo yes. Remind me which sci fi novel that was?

Stranger in a Strange Land - Robert Heinlein, not one of his best books.

er...I'm thick....how do I put an avatar up?

Click on the "Forum" link at the bottom and select "Control Panel" once you get there. Dig around and you can find it from there.

1162. Fleabytes

Comment #137769 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #137764 by clodhopper


I would like it as a verb; so I can say I pod something. Perhaps meaning 'to understand'.

eg " I do not pod what theologians do for a living"
Why use that when we already have a perfectly good word, i.e. "grok".

1163. Fleabytes

Comment #137558 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 6:37 am

Comment #137552 by Quetzalcoatl


Speaking of FCOS- after Robertson replied on his site last night another comment was made, which I now notice has magically disappeared, thanks to the wonders of moderation.
That's dreadful. If posts on this site disappeared like that, even if it was only to the alternate thread, people would immediately complain.

Oh, wait...

1164. Fleabytes

Comment #137190 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #137182 by hello


Which scientific advance is that, then?

The way debate works is that you ask some questions, we give you answers. After that it is our turn.

You owe Paula answers to questions she put to you in #135857 and #135974. Your turn to ask questions doesn't come until you have answered those.

1165. Fleabytes

Comment #137101 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #137095 by Corylus


Of course he really blew it when he linked to a Free Church Magazine. :-))
Nice spot, I think the Nov. 15th "Expelled" post rather gives it away.

1166. Fleabytes

Comment #137092 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 10:39 am

Comment #137087 by Deepthought


What were the real reasons for his banning? I'm fairly certain his are slightly skewed.
Posting in a way to cause flamefests, possibly deliberately. However, having read some of his posts elsewhere this is debatable.

Then quotemining the responses and using them elsewhere to show what nasty people we are.

1167. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136948 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #136944 by Steve Zara


I'm afraid I don't really have the strength of emotional responses you seem to think. I just believe that bullies like you do positive harm to this site. My impression is that this is supposed to be a place where people with different views can express them. Sure, we get insults, but those normally at least contain some content, or have an actual point.

Steve - I think it is a case of penis envy.

1168. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136907 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #136856 by brue68

I'd just like to say that I don't like having seat belt and helmet laws. I use a seat belt, because otherwise I feel like I'm falling out of the seat, but if someone feels like risking their life for perceived comfort or personal preference, I don't see why we should apply a penalty.


I remember when the law was promulgated here in the UK and there were lots of people moaning about it. They had a surgeon on the radio who was all in favour of it.

When asked why he said that it meant that he no longer had to extract large numbers of pieces of glass from people's faces.

1169. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #136904 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #136564 by Mango

Never give in to the demands of terrorists or they will keep up their tactics. This is encouraging extremists to continue to threaten violence because it meets their goals!

Well we in the UK were hassled by the Danes in previous generations but ignoring that, Kipling gets it right.

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:-
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:-"
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:-"

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

1170. Fleabytes

Comment #136538 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

Comment #136535 by Paula Kirby


Now I've answered your question, perhaps you would return the favour and answer the two I posted for you yesterday:

I don't think it is going to happen Paula. He (assumption on my part) seems to get to then end of one sentence and then forgets what he has said and so posts it anyway.

Attention span of a small goldfish.

1171. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #136363 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist


It's also your turn.


Agreed

Wooter - the way a debate works is that you ask questions, we provide answers.

We then ask questions, it is your turn to provide answers.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but until you provide answers to all of Jon_Sociologist's questions then I for one will not respond. Just to make life easy for you I have reworded and reformatted his questions so you can answer them more easily.

  1. How did god make our sense of smell?
  2. How did god make us able to feel emotion? I want the exact method.
  3. How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given? I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on, please do the same.
  4. What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force?
  5. Did he use something akin to an electron microscope to move things around? Did he use incredibly tiny tweezers?
  6. Seeing as he's a he: what does an omnipotent immortal god need a penis for?
  7. What goddess is he poking with it if he's the only deity?
  8. What happened to the other gods in the old testament that apparently once existed but don't now (Baal for example)
Your turn wooter, lets have some explicit answers to these questions.

1172. Fleabytes

Comment #136362 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #136357 by D'Arcy


Have you got any thing constructive to say about your ideas, like maybe "there is a God" or "Jesus saves"?

Mindless banter bores me.
Banter? It is all hello can do to get beyond a single sentence response. You can strike banter, constructive and intelligent off the list I'm afraid.

1173. Fleabytes

Comment #136206 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #136184 by Quetzalcoatl


OK, I'm off too then.

Me three.

My best ever pupil came to the club last night. He now lives in London, so this is a rare event.

I started coaching him when he was 10. After a lesson he would go and sit down in a corner and not do anything for 15 minutes or so.

He is now 19 and is on the Olympic Pathway. He came in to make the old duffer who was his coach feel good by asking for a lesson. I gave him the full works, turned it into a tactical/assault lesson. After it was over I went into a corner and quietly died for 15 minutes.

I am still stiff and knackered 24 hours later. Time for bed with a glass of Laphroaig, a bit of Dowland lute music and a book that requires little mental effort.

1174. Fleabytes

Comment #136193 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #136177 by scottishgeologist


The points that I would really like to see the God botherers get to grips with are these:

Those areas, where the "supernatural" (which lets face it cannot be empirically proven) overlaps and influences the "natural"
There was a report on Pharyngula about a debate that PZ did with a particular creationist (I can't find the exact article). Essentially PZ set the topic of the debate as the evidence for creationism. Having done that he would not let his opponent criticise evolution, he kept pulling him back on the topic of the validity of creationism.

I was trying to make a similar point earlier on, though not particularly well. If you have two people arguing on a topic, each trying to prove a particular case then the burden of proof lies symmetrically (hah) on both of them.

If you have a debate where one side is trying to prove a case and the other is merely doubting the validity of the case, then then the burden of proof is strongly on the former and only weakly on the latter.

I have been pleased to see that being emphasised more as these theist-moths have gathered around the flame.

1175. Fleabytes

Comment #136181 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #136174 by righton


I wouldnt suspect such a simple answer. Of course natural selection was working and a neurobiologist would be able to tell you a lot more about the current theories of how intelligence developed. It definitely would not be a simple "I dont know" response.
Accepted - it was such a ludicrous assertion that it needed a response. I should have left it to someone with a bit more clue.

1176. Fleabytes

Comment #136176 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Fencing icon

1177. Fleabytes

Comment #136167 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #136157 by Dr Benway


As our time is not infinite, we ought to begin now. Let's hear your reason for not believing in:

Zeus
I think you may have missed this. Rarely do I say this, but in this case it may just make the point better than you

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/

1178. Fleabytes

Comment #136160 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #136150 by Quetzalcoatl


[Multiverse-sarcasm]Ha ha ha![/Multiverse-sarcasm]

Missed a tempo there Quetz - you should have gone for Aleph One sarcasm - much bigger than Anna's plain infinity.

1179. Fleabytes

Comment #136156 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #136133 by al-rawandi


As for the prefix "a" it means without. As in amelodic, asexual, asymetry.
Just to be a spelling pedant for the moment asymmetry. Spelt it consistently wrongly in an essay once and was deducted marks each time I did it, got a negative mark.

1180. Fleabytes

Comment #136152 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Comment #136118 by whatthe..?!


"No actually, the theist asserts that a particular deity exists, we merely doubt that assertion. The burden of proof therefore lies on the theist."

MPhil has answered this better than I.

The atheist claims that intelligence arose from mindless matter. Clearly this is inadequate.
Is this a materialist atheist, a New Age atheist, a Buddhist atheist?

If you are talking about someone who works in neurobiology and has some inklings about evolution then I suspect you might get the response that the how intelligence developed is currently unclear.

Of course you are going to tell us exactly how it happened.

1181. Fleabytes

Comment #136143 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #136123 by Goldy


More like stomping on moles...
Hey Anna, a game we can agree on - wanna play "whack-a-mole"?

1182. Fleabytes

Comment #136136 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #136099 by Bonzai


I notice there are a few new names on this thread, all Christians, all post only on this thread in a hit and run fashion.. I am thinking either this is the same person with different handles, or more likely, we are being raid by a group of young Christians, possibly Robertson's minions who have to fill some quotas.


If Al-Rawandi is trademarking "Fucktard" and "StalinIcon" then I want to trade mark "VoxDay'd" - defined as "The invasion of the theists"

1183. Fleabytes

Comment #136084 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #136072 by whatthe..?!


Surely this applies to the atheist as well? After all, it would be absurd to reject theism (in this case 'Christianity') because of a perceived lack of evidence for it if atheism also lacked evidence.
No actually, the theist asserts that a particular deity exists, we merely doubt the truth of the assertion. The burden of proof therefore lies on the theist.

1184. Fleabytes

Comment #136074 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #136058 by annabanana

[sarcasm]Quetzcoatl, how dare you steal something of mine![/sarcasm]
You still have that StalinIcon?

1185. Fleabytes

Comment #135876 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 10:11 am

Comment #135866 by hello


..but I doubt very much that it was lack of evidence that led you to choose atheism.
How would you know? In fact Paula has revealed exactly how she came to be an atheist. Just backtrack through her posts to find out. You can also find similar stories from a number of people here.

Just for a change I am going to pre-empt irate_atheist - you are a sanctimonious fucktard.

1186. Fleabytes

Comment #135868 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #135857 by Paula


I won't be able to respond straightaway, since I have to go out now, but I'll be back in an hour or so and can't wait to read what you've given us.

Ooh, are you going to the dress shop? Matching shoes and handbag don't forget.

1187. Fleabytes

Comment #135851 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:48 am

I am a little disappointed with this thread. It is past 2000 now and I was expecting to see Paula in a posh frock.

I realise that she might be "fashionably late" but in the mean time it is a little dispiriting to have to put up with all these people in their sub-fusc attire trying to get a glimpse of the proceedings

1188. Fleabytes

Comment #135817 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #135811 by hello


How predictable are you? What do you friends say about you?

Folks - it isn't worth replying. This isn't a person, it is a bad implementation of the Eliza program produced by a theist.

It definitely fails the Turing test.

EDIT: do you think it gets its login name from the eponymous magazine?

1189. Fleabytes

Comment #135809 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #135802 by Storeo


bingo!
Just waiting for the Billy Goats Gruff to arrive.

Oh, and a George Carlin quotation: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

1190. Fleabytes

Comment #135794 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:14 am

Comment #135787 by kairos


Are you a boring positivist too?

Ah, this would be a rational argument would it.

What grades did you get in your courses?

1191. Fleabytes

Comment #135747 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 8:47 am

Comment #135739 by kairos


About time some of you looked 'rationality' up in a few good dictionaries including some philosophical views. If you insist on being a boring positivist forever then don't bother replying.

Ooh, bitchy.

About time you read a book on logic and learnt the difference between a valid argument and a sound one.

You might try looking up methodological naturalism at the same time.

1192. Fleabytes

Comment #135701 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 8:10 am

Comment #135698 by Artful_Dodger


Having said that, can you show me where David Robertson spoken in this kind of way? I defy you to.

I might, once you have answered my questions from posts 1863 and 1913.

1193. Fleabytes

Comment #135699 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #135686 by Dr Benway


A favorite cheater's trick: "Shakespeare isn't true in the same way as a news report. Some truth is more about feelings that facts."

Our use of the word "truth" in a range of contexts is a mere linguistic accident. Don't let this variable usage fool you into thinking there are different kinds of truth. You wouldn't think that there are different kinds of homosexuals simply because the word "fag" sometimes is used to refer to a cigarette, would you?

I recently read Susan Haack's book the "Philosophy of Logics". I had several instances of cogs turning and dropping into place generating "aha" moments.

One of these was in her discussions of theories of truth. What we seem to deem as true here is something that corresponds to the facts. The statement 'Snow is white' will only be accepted if and only if snow is white.

Another possibility is to look for coherence in a set of beliefs, to try and find a warranted maximally consistent set. This seems to be the limit that some people aspire to, they don't want to connect this set to anything empirical.

1194. Fleabytes

Comment #135690 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 7:57 am

Comment #135683 by Artful_Dodger


Don't you understand what a metaphor is? Or do you think that when the Bible says that the trees and mountains "clap their hands" that Christians take that literally too?

So now we move from symbolism to metaphor.

To extend what I said in post 1863

What else should I take to be symbolic or metaphorical in the bible, and what should I take to be literal? And whose authority should I take for this and why? And if there are multiple views as to what is literal and what is symbolic or metaphorical , which should I choose and why?

And if you think we are abusive you might want to look at
http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly

1195. Fleabytes

Comment #135665 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #135657 by irate_atheist


But, as you and I are well aware, the book itself is factually incorrect and self-contradictory. Hardly suggests the prior requirements are going to be met, does it?

It doesn't really matter though. You need to demonstrate the chain of reasoning starting at Lemma 1. I doubt that it is possible to get to Lemma 5.

1196. Fleabytes

Comment #135651 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #135640 by irate_atheist


Even before you consider this, you have to prove there is actually a god. A book of perhaps or perhaps not literal stories, made up by primitive men is not even worth considering as evidence.

It needs to be laid out as a proof

Lemma 1: The Universe was created
Lemma 2: The creator of the universe is an omnipotent, omniscient being
Lemma 3: This being, having created the universe continues to play a part in the development of the universe and all that is in it
Lemma 4: This being is specifically the deity of a particular sect of people living in one small section of one small planet circling around particular star out of 1011 others in one galaxy out of 1.5*1011 others.
Lemma 5:All of this is documented in a book written approximately 2000 years ago

All the lemmas need to be demonstrated in turn. Once this has been done then you may actually have some claim to the truth of your religion.

1197. Fleabytes

Comment #135628 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #135622 by Artful_Dodger


Along with many other Christians I have no problem with theistic evolution, and I do not agree that it drives a coach and horses through the teaching on the Fall. The story of Adam and Eve could be a story, a lierary creation, which illustrates the collective attitude of rebellion against God that humankind fell into with regard to God.


So it is symbolic, the bible story shouldn't be taken literally.

What else should I take to be symbolic in the bible, and what should I take to be literal? And whose authority should I take for this and why? And if there are multiple views as to what is literal and what is symbolic, which should I choose and why?

1198. Fleabytes

Comment #135623 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comment #135605 by mlearnedfriend


Don't think I'm indulging in thinking that just cos someone says that they believe in God then it's the reason they do anything - I was thinking more of specific scientists attributing what they did as to their faith (EG Michael Faraday).

Accepted - however one of the constant arguments, especially in the "flea" books is that Hitler, Mao, Stalin et al. were atheists (which is debatable, but no matter) and therefore their atrocities were committed because of their atheism. You must surely see the gap in the logic here.

Paula [1785] and others
you have said several times that Christians believe in people being utterly polluted - it's obviously a big bugbear with you. I think it would be farier to say that Christians believe that people are beautiful, but flawed.
It is a bugbear because it is used as a means of control, the only way out of being in a state of sin is through Christ, and the only way for that to happen is through a church of some kind.

If I was to modify this it would be to "beautiful but fallible", I don't accept the state of being inherently flawed.

The good news is that, of course there is redemption for that marred beauty.

Which means that I don't see the need for redemption. In fact I don't see being redeemed (OE - save from sin, error, or evil) as a useful concept.

1199. Fleabytes

Comment #135602 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #135593 by Artful_Dodger


Philip, can you show me some evidence of what you regard as his nastiness?
You need to go back to the "Wee Flea" posts. I am working at the moment so I haven't got time to help you get back to those.

I am not Philip (obviously), but I am speaking as someone who has been accused of being fundamentalist, irrational, gullible, having no sense of humour and a liar by DR

1200. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #135514 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #135491 by wooter

magnificent scent perception system in the nose. How does luck and chances can do that?


For fucks sake wooter, read what you are presented with. Evolution is not based on luck and chance. Selection is non-random. You have been told this and shown the evidence at least three times in the past two days.

You remind me of my kids when they were small. Going anywhere in the car you get "Are we there yet?", response "No, it should be about an hour". Two minutes later "Are we there yet?", response "Why don't you have a look at the countryside, we haven't been here before". Two minutes later "Are we there yet?". Repeat ad nauseum. Of course my kids grew out of this behaviour by the time they were 10 and used to work out what might be interesting on the journey, what toys and books to take to keep themselves occupied.

To paraphrase RD "Go read a book, you might like it".

More Pages: Previous | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 | Next