201. A flea we missed?

Comment #232694 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #232690 by AllanW

I agree. The styles are clearly related. But I am more of a Plath fan :)

The point I am trying to make is that I really do think Diacanu is a poet (I especially think this after having read some wonderful blog posts from him). He doesn't casually mock. He chooses words with precision.

202. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #232693 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #232016 by spiderdancer

But if you say there is no sense in which we can escape our genes it sounds to me like you are taking up a position of genetic determinism.

I really am not. I think we have a huge amount of freedom, but that this freedom is what we are given by genes, as genes have given us our big brains and minds.

All I am trying to say is that we can't escape the influence of genes, as we are nothing but the product of genes. We can't escape selection, as whatever happens to us, that will select genes. But, genes don't control us.

203. A flea we missed?

Comment #232686 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #232674 by Hellene

I vote to hand the cricket bat to Steve.

I refuse it. I say it goes to Diacanu, who has a style and poetry and passion it has taken me a long while to figure out what it reminded me of. Many may disagree, but the spiky poetry of Diacanu at his best reminds me of Sylvia Plath. I feel lucky I know so many people here who are so lucid and knowledgeable and eloquent.

204. A flea we missed?

Comment #232660 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Comment #232655 by JAMCAM87

There is all the difference between the interactions of those who are regulars on a site, and those who post only to provoke, such as Robertson.

205. A flea we missed?

Comment #232631 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #232625 by kkelly

Steve, I have stopped being explicitly offensive

Very well done! I am so glad you have done that. It really isn't a good idea to go around being explicitly offensive, otherwise people might actually find you offensive.

I do wonder what it was about Richard Dawkins, a thoroughly decent fellow, that made you feel that you should come to his site and be explicitly offensive?

206. A flea we missed?

Comment #232626 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm

However it is an odd dichotomy to insist this site must be purely intellectual discourse, or pure nonsense which some may find humorous. Can't it be a bit of both?

It can be a bit of both, but in the humour, I look for intellect, and in the intellect, I look for humour. There are those here who combine both wonderfully - Shane Dark and Diacanu, for example.

For me, the main thing is for posters to realise that this is the site of Richard Dawkins. It isn't the site of Adam Sandler, or of Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. This is supposed to be a site of clear thinking and intellect.

207. A flea we missed?

Comment #232616 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 11:53 am

I have to say, I agree with Diacanu.

Some people (and I will name them) seem to have forgotten that this is the website of one of the most eloquent and literate scientists of the past century. I think we have to question whether or not the standard of debate and discussion established by Richard Dawkins is being maintained or appreciated.

I think it isn't. That may well be the consequence of an open and largely unmoderated forum, but I would be saddened if this really were the case.

There have been those who have posted here with amazing knowledge and intellect, who have surely educated me, and many others.

But, recently, there have been posts that have not matched that level of wit, or intellect; who have not even respected that quality. Kkelly has been explicitly offensive. TWP has just posted a load of "whacks", without, to be honest, much to back that up.

Do we really want this site to reduce that level? It has been a place of inspiring discussions; a place where some of us have been educated - where minds have been changed. We can either work to keep this site like that, or we can have Richard Dawkins' place of discussion decend to the same level as any other general chat site on the internet.

My view is that we stop pandering to those who just want to rant or joke here. We say that you need to post with imagination or intelligence, or just shut up.

208. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #232587 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 11:23 am

Comment #232577 by Elli

I too really love reading Dennett, and listening to him. However, there are others I find just a bit better at getting to the point of an argument and explaining it. In the area that Dennett deals with, I can thoroughly recommend the writings of Paul Churchland.

209. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232570 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #232563 by kkelly

Actually, I think it is enough people reacting to that infection and marking it as troll.

You have a clever tactic. Intersperse enough trolling nonsense with occasional lucidity to make people confused about your intentions.

I have no hesitation in marking your posts as trolling from now on.

210. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232562 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #232560 by kkelly

Is there a way to protect against irritating infections of websites?

211. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232534 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #232524 by Fanusi Khiyal

Are you really willing to trust your medical care to someone willing to work under compulsion, with his mind throttled and abrogated?

Piffle. I have a local NHS surgery that is wonderful. My late father was treated with great skill and compassion in his last days.

You are just talking out of your bottom, I am afraid.

212. A flea we missed?

Comment #232510 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 8:34 am

Comment #232470 by Oystein Elgaroy

Robertson has indeed strayed into cosmology.

In his "Dawkins Letters" he refers to Paul Davies' book "The Goldilocks Enigma" as making a case for theism, even though Davies is an atheist, and the book (I don't know if you are familiar with it) makes the same kind of arguments that The God Delusion does about "ultimate 747s", and Davies says that "... the concept of "God" runs into a logical and existential quagmire".

What Robertson is saying is that he knows better than Paul Davies what the conclusion of his book should be. Neat, isn't it?

Robertson is the kind of person who could read The Origin of Species and come to the conclusion that it made an excellent case for creationism because life is so complex.

213. A flea we missed?

Comment #232433 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 5:47 am

Wow! Without the 20-something female twit leading the besotted bunch of you around by the nose, some conversaton (almost) worth reading occurs!

Funny how people start generalising when they go on the attack.

David Robertson: "you are all followers of Dawkins"
Richard Morgan: "you are all nasty atheists"

and now we are all a besotted bunch.

If you want to critcise people, at least have the decency to name names.

214. A flea we missed?

Comment #232392 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 3:09 am

This is not an argument of someone who accepts evolution.

Indeed.

Or is the argument that human sin somehow retroactively polluted the entire evolutionary process?

Maybe, Hitch-Hiker's Guide style, there was some kind of accident involving a condom, a rubber band and a time machine.

215. A flea we missed?

Comment #232388 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 3:05 am

Comment #232384 by Quetzalcoatl

I realise that considerable attempts at interpretation will be made. My point is that Robertson comes right out and uses direct creationist language in his article. He did not say "spiritual death" - he was quite explicit.

216. A flea we missed?

Comment #232382 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #232380 by Quetzalcoatl

But then... that meant that David was not exactly telling the truth in his article.

I am deeply shocked, I can tell you.

217. A flea we missed?

Comment #232378 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #232368 by irate_atheist

This is actually quite amusing. I wonder how someone who supposedly accepts evolution can explain it happening through sort-of death and stuff. Maybe I am just being silly, but I kind of imagine that animals actually died millions of years ago.

I would also be interested to know when real cancer came into the world. There were presumably neanderthals who lived in a state of holiness, and so did not suffer from such diseases.

(I am really having to struggle not to laugh)

218. A flea we missed?

Comment #232365 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 2:22 am

Robertson wrote-

Steve - you clearly want to live in this black and white world where you have the answer for everything.

No. I don't have answers. I am dealing with what you have said, not what I say. I am trying to resolve inconsistences in what you post and write.

That is not the world I live. I do not know when the fall happened. I do not know when cancer first appeared. And I do believe that the world was created good and that part of that goodness was that death existed - at least in some forms. For example grass died, seed was renewed etc. But you clearly think there can be only two alternatives - the fundamentalist creationist viewpoint and the fundamentalist materialist viewpoint. I am not convinced by either. By the way I do accept that evolution happened.

I am only dealing with what you wrote. You have now contradicted yourself. You clearly wrote that disaster, death and cancer came into the world as a result of the sin. There was no ambiguity about it.

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm
"God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death."

How could it be any clearer?

Now you say:
"death existed - at least in some forms"

If you now admit you were wrong, and that there has been death, cancer and disaster in the world for billions of years, then I suggest you post up a clarification on your site to indicate that you were mistaken in your original article.

David - this is not about me and my views. It is about trying to get to what you really believe.

You mentioned grass dying. Are you honestly trying to say that no animals died before people sinned? If you are OK with evolution, then there must have been death and disaster before people sinned. It is as simple as that.

You see, David, this is an example of how science and religion really do conflict. You just can't have an actual fall bringing things like disease and death into the world and have evolution over billions of years, unless you are prepared to say that the fall is entirely metaphorical. But then, if it is metaphorical, there was no point to the death and resurrection of Christ.

So, if you say you accept evolution, you have a problem with the story of Christ.

219. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232337 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:50 am

Comment #232335 by Mitchell Gilks

Absolutely. I think that panspermia within the Solar System is pretty much inevitable, but I would seriously doubt that microbial life could travel between stars.

220. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232325 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #232324 by Mitchell Gilks

Actually, I think panspermia is pretty likely...

221. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232323 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Comment #232319 by Jesus86

Goldy, I realize that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) community are not REAL scientists, but they say AGW is "proven" all the time.

I doubt that is often said in scientific papers. The nature of the discussion between J Mac and Mitchell seemed to me to be about questions of scientific truth, not causal conversation. But I could have misinterpreted.

222. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232318 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Comment #232308 by Mitchell Gilks

I apologise if I have been unfair. I should have made it clear I was talking more broadly (which is why I included "evidence" as well). This covers a discussion on my blog when you talked about probability as evidence.

Anyway, I am sorry if what I have said has been inappropriate.

223. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232314 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Comment #232309 by Jesus86

I guess it's just me then, but I don't see that it is consistent to say that natural selection is proven, and when asked what would show it was wrong, reply (as some do) "a rabbit fossil in cambrian rocks". If you can come up with a possibility that something isn't true, then by definition it isn't "proven".

I find it more usual to hear something like

"we are as sure that evolution happened as that gravity exists"

224. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232305 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Proof in science is less well-defined; but if Steve Zara were right, there would be no such thing as proof in science.

I would say that there isn't. All theories are tentative.

I question the utility of a word that defines an empty set.

Like "God" :)

225. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232302 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Comment #232300 by Mitchell Gilks

Being a scientist doesn't make you a polymath. So I think that's disingenuous.

I never claimed to be a polymath. I claim to be a scientist with decades of experience. I only recently broke my last connection with science (about a year ago). I have both an interest and experience in quite broad areas of science, from biology, thermodynamics, physics and chemistry (my Ph.D. was in biology, my post-doctoral work in thermodynamics)

What you are doing is misusing terms which apply in any area of science. A biologist would disagree with you as much as a nuclear scientist.

You make it sound like I was ignorantly pontificating based on nothing.

Not at all. You clearly have quite a bit of knowledge of what you are discussing. Where I disagree with you is how you are using terms like "proof" and "evidence".

226. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232298 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Comment #232297 by Mitchell Gilks

In fact none of us here are scientists

Yes we are!

I'm a layman, and I'm limited in this discussions to regurgitating information I've read, to that 60-75% accuracy that I can expect my memory to offer.

It is great for lay people to come to a site like this and engage in discussions. What is probably not a good idea is to start declaring that what you think is true if you aren't an expert in a subject.

It is probably wiser to put forward a suggestion and ask of people "what do you think?" :)

227. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232294 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Comment #232292 by Mitchell Gilks

No, I disagree. We are talking about science here, not natural language. Words like "proof" and "theory" have to be used with precision, and appropriately for the context.

228. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232288 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Comment #232286 by Diacanu

I guess that saves us in the UK having to spend any more money on the next olympics!

229. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232287 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Comment #232283 by Mitchell Gilks

It is very important that we use terms correctly. Proof means that something is known beyond any possible doubt. That is just not possible in science like it is in mathematics or logic.

All theories are tentative.

230. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232282 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:26 pm

All that remains is actually witnessing its occurrence.

Assuming it actually happened. Just because something could happen does not mean it did.

231. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232280 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm

The only different between proof and evidence is in amount. A proof about the world is merely a lot of evidence.

I am afraid not. Science isn't about the proof of truth, it is about a constant search for better explanations. But no amount of evidence actually proves that some explanation is true, just that it is useful. At any time, some evidence could turn up that shows that the a scientific theory is wrong.

Science is not mathematics, where proofs are possible.

232. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #232279 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Comment #232270 by isthatclear

The problem with your point of view is that the universe does not even look designed. Diacanu is right - it is vastly more like a paint factory explosion than a painting.

The universe did not actually start with an explosion - it started with a very small amount of energy, which could have been of entirely random origin.

We don't need to talk about designers when we look at the solar system, because we can explain it all in terms of gravity. We can run simulations on a computer that end up with pretty much the same thing as what we see around us.

We don't need to talk about designers when we look at life, because we can explain it in terms of natural selection - natural selection that we have actually seen happen, both in the wild and in laboratories.

Now what exactly about all this do you fail to understand?

233. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231998 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment #231980 by Oystein Elgaroy

I am with Sargeist. Surely the implication is that QM has instantaneous communication (although nothing that we can use to transmit information)

234. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231979 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 11:38 am

Comment #231960 by Ex~

There seems to be some confusion about what Quantum Mechanics means for free will.

It doesn't help at all!

235. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231927 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 10:21 am

It is often said that the unpredictability of quantum mechanics allows for free will. But I am not convinced by this, really.

I agree. There would have to be some sort of mechanism through which the "will" influenced quantum outcomes. That makes no sense at all.

236. A flea we missed?

Comment #231874 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 8:49 am

Comment #231854 by Apathy personified

Re: Whacks and latin.

Heh. You have a point.

237. A flea we missed?

Comment #231845 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 7:25 am

Comment #231837 by thewhitepearl

Sorry, but I guess I don't have the correct sense of humour either. But I'm not going to nag anyone if they aren't being offensive.

However, [whack] doesn't just work for me as an argument :)

238. A flea we missed?

Comment #231797 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #231793 by JAMCAM87

I do understand what you are trying to say, but I think it would be now counter-productive. David would only claim that it was his influence that made us all "nice".

There are also people who post here who have had a truly terrible experience of religion. I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to warmly shake the hand of someone like Robertson (to exaggerate what you are saying).

239. A flea we missed?

Comment #231789 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 4:59 am

Comment #231787 by JAMCAM87

Surely we come off looking better if we treat David with the utmost respect even though he doesn't deserve it?

I think that there is a danger of appearing to show respect for someone simply because they are a minister.

Anyone who comes to this site gets a chance to be treated with respect. There have been many long and amicable debates with theists here.

David has repeatedly demonstrated that he deserves no such respect.

240. A flea we missed?

Comment #231786 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 4:46 am

Best way: - find a common target....

Exactly. Nothing like finding a very visible common target - New Atheists, then make it personal - attack Richard Dawkins either directly or via his supposed "followers", and put yourself forward as some kind of religious hero for doing so.

The problem is that for this to succeed you actually have to have some method for attacking effectively. So far we have little more than gripes about how mean and nasty we all are.

241. A flea we missed?

Comment #231782 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #231777 by Laurie Fraser

I honestly question if Robertson (and those like him) really do believe all that stuff. I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be that ignorant or self-deluded.

I think such people use religion to put themselves in a position of control over others. Sometimes this may be for good intentions - they believe that people must have a belief in God to have meaningful and moral lives.

My interpretation is that Robertson is trying to perform a balancing act: trying not to annoy the relatively rational Christians or the creationists too much. He is also trying to keep people with such incompatible views in the same Church by getting them to focus on a common enemy - atheism, and especially Dawkins.

242. A flea we missed?

Comment #231775 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 4:02 am

Comment #231771 by Laurie Fraser

I am afraid I am going to have to take issue with you in this matter:

Is it any wonder we get frustrated that, in 2008, we are still burdened with iron-age explanations which serve no useful purpose either ontologically, epistemologically, or even practically?

You are far, far too mild here. We aren't just dealing with explanations that serve no useful purpose, we are dealing with non-explanations that stifle thought, and attempt to corrupt the minds of the young against science.

The whole idea of trusting any supernatural explanation was shown to be invalid by David Hume centuries ago. That should have been even more devastating for religion than the discovery of Natural Selection as an explanation for complexity.

The only explanation for the persistence of religion is a combination of self-delusion and ignorance.

243. A flea we missed?

Comment #231764 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 3:05 am

Steve, brave effort but sometimes when one hears such stupidity, there can be no answer, other than ridicule.

I don't expect an answer from Robertson other than perhaps some vague "you have not understood my article". However, if any of his flock read these pages, they will now see the real problem with his position. Also, any lack of response by him to the questions will be significant.

244. A flea we missed?

Comment #231755 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 2:18 am

Steve - welcome back from your break. We have been over this many times. The simple thing is to read the article for yourself.

I have read the article in great detail, and with care, many times.

And things are not just black and white. I wrote the article because there were some really foolish people who were saying things like 'the Tsunami is God's judgement upon people who were being wicked'. The fact is that disasters do happen. But they are not usually the direct result of specific sins.

Perhaps you could be explicit about which disasters are the result of specific sins.

However do I believe that the Fall affected everything - including the environment. Yes. I believe that what humans do, does affect the environment - whether floods in Banglasdesh being caused by deforestation or human greed affecting other parts of the planet. But I was asked a specific question about the Tsunami - which I answered. The fact that some atheists here lack the subtility, intelligence or the honesty to understand that I was not saying that the Tsunami was Gods wrath on a specific group of people, is not really my problem.

Look - you explicitly said that a Fall of some kind brought disaster, cancer and death into the world. That the world was created perfect.

You can't say that and say you accept evolution and be consistent. Evolution requires death. You can't say that and say you accept geology and be consistent. Geology shows huge natural disasters over the history of the Earth.

So, I am asking you - when did the fall happen? When did cancer first appear in the world? Was it before humans appeared?

You have a choice, David - you can either go the creationist route and state that there was a perfect world before a fall, or you can accept that evolution happened.

Do you accept that evolution happened?

245. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #231746 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #231063 by spiderdancer

There is always a lag time so to say "freedom will be as much subject to selection as anything else" is misleading. Many of our current freedoms are only possible since the scientific revolution. Human evolution is simply outpaced by cultural evolution, advances in science or if you like memes.

How are we able to do science and have culture? Because of our large brains built by the action of genes.

The point is that we alone have brains large enough to understand the urges given to us by our genes and can actively rebel against them if we choose to either as individuals or collectively as a society.

And how do we rebel against the urges? Using the brains produced by genes.

How do we get the choice? Using the brains produced by genes.

If it turns out that having brains big enough to choose to do science, to have culture, and to act against some urges is an advantage for our survival, then the genes that help build those big brains will be selected for.

Our culture and ability to choose isn't any kind of escape from natural selection and the influence of genes - it is all part of the same process.

246. A flea we missed?

Comment #231732 by Steve Zara on August 17, 2008 at 12:29 am

I was going to take a break from here, but when I read the following from clearthinker....

Yes - complete nonsense. My article was written precisely against the nonsense that the Tsunami was a direct result of bad behaviour by people.

I could not resist a reply.

Here is what David Robertson wrote:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

I shall quote relevant sections, with emphasis

"But what about Darwin's argument? He makes one big mistake - he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, 'And God say that it was good'. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation 'groans as in the pangs of childbirth'. We are faced with two choices - either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation."

....
"Of course there is a judgemental aspect in that such natural disasters warn us of what is to come and the folly of living life without Christ. But to make the simplistic equation that natural disasters occur because of specific sins is neither logical nor biblical."

....

Either David is clearly not telling the truth, or he is a very poor communicator.

The article says that natural disasters, disease etc - the reason why creation isn't perfect - are indeed due to bad behaviour.

What it says is that specific disasters aren't due to specific bad behaviour.

But, as far as I know, no-one here has been trying to argue that point. What we have been trying to point out is the absurd idea that the Earth was in some perfect state before people turned up with their bad behaviour. If that were true, evolution could not have happened.

If you believe in a fall in which disasters result from even indirect bad behaviour, then you are a creationist. If you simply believe in a spiritual fall, then you can't connect bad behaviour with disasters in any way.

What I am after is a definite date as to when disaster, disease and death came into the world. I am afraid anything more recent than about 3.5 billion years ago is not acceptable if one believes in evolution. On the other hand, it does seem a little odd to suggest that the world was corrupted by the naughtiness of bacteria...

247. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #230984 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #230888 by kkelly

I have done some research into the ways that people attempt to get a presence on a site and taint it.

I have spoken to people who have had experience of people doing this on various forums and newsgroups over the past 10-15 years.

Unless you provide substantial evidence to the contrary, I think you are a plant. I think you are here to not just here to make gay men look bad, but to make atheists look like perverts.

I think you are a fraud. I suggest to others that they flag you as "offensive" or "troll" as often as possible. Knowing from long experience how people like you operate, the lack of such flagging will be treated as acceptance of your repulsive views.

Meanwhile, to avoid being flamed by naive posters like Dr Doctor, who clearly have never encountered people like you, I am going to retire from here for a short while until your poisonous presence has been removed.

248. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230970 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Comment #230948 by thewhitepearl

I think as one gets older, one goes for humour and intellect rather than physique. This means I find Jon Stewart and Steve Carell distinctly attractive.

Comment #230951 by Gregg Townsend

Sorry, never seen the movie.

249. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230933 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #230930 by Sciros

I have heard very good reviews. I was not impressed by the original show.

I shall report back when I have seen the film!

250. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230931 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Comment #230927 by ColdFusionLazarus

Being agnostic is not weak-minded, but I think it reflects ignorance. I don't think anyone who understands the scientific and philosophical issues regarding supernaturalism could possibly be agnostic.