Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: literature.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to literature.org.

Comments · 54

  1. Frankenstein: creator or creature? by lipi · · Score: 1 · on Frankenstein Time
    "When last seen, almost two hundred years ago, Dr. Frankenstein's monster was heading off into the frozen wastes of the Antarctic."

    "Frankenstein was right when he told his doctor-creator that it was a sin to create things one doesn't take any responsibility for."

    Frankenstein was the name of the creator, not the monster's. You can find the novel here.

  2. Literature.org by basscomm · · Score: 1 · on Where Is The Wiretap Archive?

    I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned http://www.literature.org. They have quite a few of the 'classics' on line. It seems to bea slightly different selection of authors than other sites out there.

  3. Re:A-Ha! Wrong by m3000 · · Score: 1 · on King's New eBook

    Yep. Bill Gates "The Road Ahead" book was on the CD-Rom that came with the printed book. And you can read Brave New World, or any of the books by these Authors online too. Plus 1984 is somewhere on the net, but I can't remember the link.

  4. Truce? by mwillis · · Score: 1 · on Evolution is a Myth in Kansas
    Axe, please adjust the trigger on your flame thrower. Did you think I was defending creationism? I was stating common creationist arguments, and then I said they were proven wrong. I don't have any more respect for "creation science" than you do.

    Thanks for the t.o. link. The two creationist arguments I discussed are conventially debunked here and here. On the paucity of fossil evidence for missing links I offer Darwin:

    ...Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory ... ( On the Origin of Species, 1859, p310)
    He was right, this is indeed one of the arguments creationists use. Was I wrong to offer an explanation of why gaps are not really that big of a deal? How gaps will always exist? How gaps are a silly non-proof for creationism? For examples of the "two gaps from one gap" creationist argument, please see page 149 of Why people believe weird things.

    I can only conclude that we have nothing to argue with each other about. Time to get back to bashing microsoft.