jakee

Look, I'm sorry J but that is absolute bullshit! Where do you get this information? The vast, vast majority of credible scientific research that takes place on the subject is strengthening and adding to evolution by natural selection. In the scientific world it is one sided. Evolution is the only scientific theory that is on the table regarding the origin of species. There is, currently, no credible alternative. It is the major triumph of IDists that they have managed to create, in the public eye, the image of scientific controversy and debate where in reality there is none. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Which reminds me - what possible explanation can strict creationists have to gel the incredible size, beauty and complexity of the universe with their conviction of being the only intelligent life? Along with the solar system God (completely unneccesarily) creates an entire universe of staggering immensity, variety and wonder, populated with wierd and wonderful objects like black holes, neutron stars, quasars and pulsars, billions of galaxies and star clusters, sprawling nebula's spawning new stars from the galactic debris - yet he only makes one species on one planet deemed worthy of a soul....... and then what? Did he get bored and wander off? Did he believe he had achieved perfection? (not likely) Did shepherding us through the Old Testament trials and tribulations warrant every piece of his attention? So, honest question to all the creationists out there - do you truly believe that all of it is just for us? If so why do you think god stopped with humans? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Watch this A pretty high res version of the HUDF can be found here (I strongly recommend taking an hour or so to look through the archives of that site - it's truly humbling) and a cool Q and A about the image can be found here. Some of the facts that jump out - 10,000 galaxies in a patch of sky that appears smaller than a large crater on the moon, light from the faintest objects reached the telescope at a rate of less than 1 photon per minute, and the image took 11.3 days of exposure time to build up. And one more thing you need to look at it to find out - it is amazingly beautiful

If we keep doing what we are will they stop murdering each other and us? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If creationism provides a steady stream of articles worthy of academic publication then the torrent of articles supporting evolution would outflow the Amazon, the Nile, the Zambesi, the Colorado, the Mississippi, the Rhine and the Indus put together. But not the Tigris and Euphrates, which are in Iraq. Why do you support the war in Iraq? Does that mean I also support the civil war in the Congo? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh I nearly forgot - It did provide me with the funniest quote I've seen in a long while... If creationism provides a steady stream of articles worthy of academic publication then the torrent of articles supporting evolution would outflow the Amazon, the Nile, the Zambesi, the Colorado, the Mississippi, the Rhine and the Indus put together. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Sorry, you just seemed so proud of yourself I thought I'd chip in with some moral support. Well, I must admit I have no idea what jubilz means but I did read the article. Basically - it's confused. Beyond the standard macro/micro dead horse whipping at the start the author trots out a bunch of ill thought out examples that, ironically, don't really conflict with evolutionary theory. The author seems to believe that if he can show examples of animals that have lost some functionality that this will negate evolution, thats just wrong. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most complex. It means survival of the best adapted life form for X environment. Often this means gaining something new, sometimes it means discarding/changing/disconnecting something old. Some of the examples put forward on the page are shockingly bad - for example human hereditary illnesses. Why no mention of the benefits of sickle cell disease? And No4, the non-flying Cormorant. They seem to be suggesting that it has lost a gene that says "Fly" (even if that were correct, of course no mention of gaining a gene that would say "Swim"). Huge amounts of conjecture - extremely light on anything approaching science. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh is that what you were doing earlier, thats just so clever! Y'know, first time you did it - I didn't even notice. How embarrased am I!! But I can totally see it now, you've changed one letter, and now evolution is evil! Thats just so clever - I would never have thought of doing that. Did you think that up all by yourself? Did you? Wow thats just great - I'm going to have to remember that one - evilution - wow, seriously, thats genius, really is. You can't see me, but I'm giving you a round of applause 'cos thats just blown me away -so inventive with the o and the i and the different meanings.... Well done you!

Oh agreed there absolutely. I live with a mix of people from atheist to evangelical and I absolutely hate the idea that if one of them is talking about Jesus to me it would somehow be rude of me to say what I think Screw that. There is a difference though with Dawkins' crusade. I don't think very much of what he says is wrong, its just that he is a man with a rare gift for explaining something very important (evolution) and I wouldn't like to see people turned away from that thinking "Oh its that horrible god hater, I won't read anything of his again!" But hey, you're probably right - most wouldn't read it anyway Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Name one planet in this solar system other than the third rock, which will sustain life, and prove it. And that means what? You said that not a single other planet in this universe has all the conditions together to sustain life. The tiny, tiny sample we have available in our solar system does not tell us everything about what is out there. You also made a bizarre comment about life "picking" this planet over the others in our solar system that are unable to sustain it. What did that mean? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And just how the fuck do you know that? Have you looked at all the planets in even just this galaxy? Your astronomy is as bad as your biology. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Very interesting. If they genuinely thought that conference was needed then things in America must be worse than I realised. I think this is worth repeating though, When scientists get together and talk about how to have scientific discovery elevated above religion I think it adds credence to those fucking morons who think that science is just a conspiracy to deny Jesus. In that light this kind of talk may well end up being counterproductive. I was flicking through Dawkins' "God Delusion" in a bookstore the other day and was struck by the same thing. I think we need people like Dawkins to fight the good fight of evolution against the bronze age theological bullshit which seems to be making a comeback right now. Unfortunately when he so publicly lashes out against the whole edifice of religion I believe (even though I agree with what he says) that it makes those who should read his works on evolution far less likely to do so. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Vesper: Don't worry, on this job I will be keeping my eyes on the money and off your perfectly formed arse. Bond: You noticed. ..... That dude who gets killed at the beginning of You Only Live Twice: Dry Martini, stirred not shaken. I hope I got that right? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You people are taking this wAAAAAAAAAAAAAy too seriously... it's parody folks. Yeah, but its not really perspective, is it? Putting something in perspective is showing the relative importance of it in relation to something else. Like, Iraq's a quagmire, the national debt is a record high, China's poised to take over as the most powerful nation on the planet and yet the reason people are pissed off is because they haven't got the best gaming platform yet Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Damn right. Very religious people (with support) scare the shit out of me - they should scare you as well. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I did read what I wrote, I didn't say they were close to passing. Which part of what I said about your link was incorrect? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh believe me champ, it was funny in a very different way than what you intended. Soorry bro ...Put on some clothes then will ya What the... How did you know I was typing naked? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I didn't say it was close to passing. You still haven't proven your premise. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh believe me champ, it was funny in a very different way than what you intended. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well, I know that a dodecagon has 12 sides, and a hexagon has 6. No idea what a hexigon is though Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ok. Back it up. http://neuropolitics.org/Right-and-Left-Brain-Hemispheric-Asymmetries-Part-2.htm Section one, paragraph six, male conservatives only see the world in Good and Evil. This is counted as more rational behaviour than the ability to see shades of grey. Section one, paragraph eleven, female and male conservatives are far more likely to be scarily religious. Questions 8 and 28 to me show a bizarre contradiction in the responses. Also, note that the study is designed to highlight gender differences, rather than across the board political differences. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh for fucks sake - why haven't you been listening!!!!! In sufficient quantities those 1s and 0s can describe the entire world we live on, it doesn't need a new unit to carry new information. Likewise those As, Bs, Cs and G's can express information enough to describe every living thing on the damn planet! we don't need to add a Z on the end to describe something else, we don't need new units to turn a horse into a giraffe. Now since you are determined to keep parroting Spetner's 'information' catchphrase despite anything said on this site, perhaps you would at least read this fully referenced article answering his argument? From the introduction... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Two things I find hilarious: 1. That after (supposedly) reading the point by point rebuttals of your arguments and the external sources you have been shown you creationists still think that your position is not only plausible but actually defeating evolution on the grounds of scientific evidence! Your stubborness in the face of reality is breathtaking. 2. Even your attempted satire takes after your 'theory' and is riddled with internal inconsistencies If there weren't so damn many of you out there I'd be laughing so hard I'd cry. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ok. Back it up. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The problem is that it was so visibly fake. I mean, like Moonraker fake. None of the CG looked even remotely real or plausible. Also, Bond isn't just about the action, its about the wit. The scenes between Halle Berry and Brosnan were so badly written it was painful to watch! I've never seen a pair so devoid of chemistry on screen. Do you want to have an ideagasm?