Poor guy. He's a high-level necro. Everyone knows high-level necros are bitter, life-haters. They were the first to receive -- perhaps the worst ever -- character nerf stick.
Whatever you do, don't call him a "manabattery"....
Inveigle a crackpot into the centrifuge and spin him until well-done. Afterwards, he'll forget all about wanting fame via crackpotting:
"Chelette said some centrifuge subjects awake confused, bewildered and disoriented, often with no memory of the event. Others react violently with spasms and convulsions: what some call the 'Funky Chicken.'"
What horrifies me is thinking a time will come when the rich will be the only ones who have access to this. "I'm gonnna die of old age and will my wealth to, well, me!"
And, imagine, Michael Jackson cloning himself, just when we might be feeling we'll be free of him -- public nose-peelings and baby drops into the 22nd century!!!
I'd like to ask what you think of your humorous reputation for bad acting.
My gosh people! That was the first question, and when I read it I thought: "my gosh, how crass."
I think he was very nice to not totally blast his answer to that question or be rude in the rest of them after that. So, lemme get this straight, he's interviewed with an opening question of: "So, you suck, what's that like?" And all you people can do is complain about his brevity?!?
I found his answers short, but thoughtful, and wasn't offended in the least.... Stinking whiney babies....
Re:The answer wasn't "Just Believe" it was
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 0
I like how your posts get a 2 every time and mine have at best been 0:) The moderators like your debating me and/or you is one....
Are you implying....
I'm not implying anything. I'm asking questions and rebutting inadequate answers. I do not know the origin of an angler fish (not archer), and maybe a good reading-up on the problems evolution has in describing why that thing 'evolved' a fishing rod would help matters out (oh wait, the "counterintuitive"/just believe it answer). I enjoy watching evolutionists and creationists do fighting retreats on differing issues though.
Let me restate this but this time in cartman's voice: "I am not saying the damn fish was either created or evolved."
I am asking this: prove to me it evolved. So far, it hasn't been proven. Prove it was created -- can't. Can we really prove the origins of anything? Perhaps not. Fine, just admit that. Yes, ultimate proof will come by developing an angler fish. Woe, that's too much to ask. Let's at least get in the ball park then -- hasn't happened yet.
Until something is empirically proven it is theory. I have yet to see evolution -- yes, "see" evolution. I have yet to "see" something created as well. These are both theories. Dammit people, even the Greeks knew how to separate thought from tangibility....
The crux of the argument is that evolution is theory. I keep up with anyone until they cross that point. I enjoy theory, analysis, but whenever someone states, flatly, that a theory is fact -- I'm moving on. At the point that "that" claim is made, then one must deliver. It's basic drag racing. I've seen it myself. "My car is faster than yours." Then get out the pink slips, hand them over to a third party, race, one loses, he owns both cars. Done.
people _have_ "developed" atoms before. You can make helium out of hydrogen given enough energy
Negative, moving atomic particles around is not equivalent to making an atom no more than cooking an omelet makes you a chicken. Do you have kids? I do. It's great to see them think they run the world because they know how to turn the light on or run water from the faucet.
Creationists refuse to evaluate evolution as any sort of possibility for origins. Evolutionists refuse to consider their theory as "theory."
I guess there's a silver-lining though. 500 years ago we'd both have been burned at the stake for what we're saying here....
You're using an abnormally rigourous definition of "faith" here.
Really?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
If an explanation is requested and the answer is to "just believe" in an unsubstantiated theory, then that, my friend, is a request of "faith" as the answer.
If you asked me where I got the aluminum meat-tenderizing hammer (yes, yes, aluminum is bad for us) and I told you I made it in a machine shop and you further inquired with an "explain how" I could probably hand you the drawings, give you a tour of lathe, milling machine and drill press and even go so far as to demonstrate the process on some scrap pieces of metal.
If you further asked me where the aluminum came from I might go on to explain mining, refinery processes, etc., but if you persisted into the origins of its very "stuff," at some point, there would be no knowledge-base on the matter. No one has ever developed an atom much less atomic particles, strings, etc. If there is no tangible demonstration, no empirical example, no "how-to" knowledge-base then the explanation remains theory.
And that, my friend, is the problem I have with all closed-minded thinkers. Until you land your feet on the moon how to get there is theory (and this theory was nicely put to the test). Until dark matter is placed in a petri dish what it actually "is" is theory.
Oh that more scientists would spend a day in the real world....
So it's the faith thing again. I'm just supposed to believe. I love how evolutionists catergorize faith as "counterintuitive" and creationists categorize intuitive as "faith."
I'm still waiting on an answer. If you're trying to convince me, then the onus is not on me to convince myself. No amount of "the answer is counterintuitive" or "you can figure it out yourself" will suffice....
I have a better idea. Scientists have literally compiled a mountain of evidence that evolution has occured.
Why don't one of you creationists come up with one tinsey, tiny little bit of hard evidence showing that ANY god(s) exist...
1. Bile hinders objective thought.
2. This is a parental "because I said so" answer....
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues persuasively that evolution should be counterintuitive.
So it takes "faith" eh?
Then why discuss anything? I'm still waiting for answers.
I asked the question about the angler fish (ya, that was me -- gotta -1 for that! woohoo!!!). I have honestly been studying, as a novice, both evolution and creationism. I am sick and tired of both sides. You do nothing but bash each other and deride those who don't swear allegiance to your side. I'm an analyst by trade, and a theorist by hobby. I love new theories. When evolutionists, or creationists, spew forth bile instead of answering a question, pure theoretical dialogue becomes impossible.
The only real problem I have with evolutionists or creationists (or anyone) is when they claim their theory to be fact. Yes, creationists claim to have facts (evidence ) too.
Pretend I'm dumb (not hard), pretend you must talk slowly and deliberately (this'll draw jokes I'm sure), but explain to me how angler fish evolved. This is the one thing creationists discuss that I have yet to hear a good rebuttal from evolutionists on (I don't count the "you can't understand it" explanation above)....
Sorry if this is off topic. I guess posts should be directly about the book....
Columbus ambled upon a new continent and didn't even know it. He died believing it was the landmasses of the known east. This is why we don't live in "Columbia" but instead in "America" (the dude that got it right). As one of my professors put it:
"Columbus: he didn't know where he was going on his way there; didn't know where he was when he got there, and when he left, he didn't know where he'd been."
Columbus was a lot of things. Clueless was one of them....
Slashdot Mirror
I just watched OS Revolution. You mean to tell me all anyone had to do was ask for the money for GNU/Linux and they would have got it?
So like, build a better mouse trap and stuff....
62 Necromancer of Lanys T`Vyl
Poor guy. He's a high-level necro. Everyone knows high-level necros are bitter, life-haters. They were the first to receive -- perhaps the worst ever -- character nerf stick.
Whatever you do, don't call him a "manabattery"....
Inveigle a crackpot into the centrifuge and spin him until well-done. Afterwards, he'll forget all about wanting fame via crackpotting:
"Chelette said some centrifuge subjects awake confused, bewildered and disoriented, often with no memory of the event. Others react violently with spasms and convulsions: what some call the 'Funky Chicken.'"
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0698/spin2.htm
What horrifies me is thinking a time will come when the rich will be the only ones who have access to this. "I'm gonnna die of old age and will my wealth to, well, me!" And, imagine, Michael Jackson cloning himself, just when we might be feeling we'll be free of him -- public nose-peelings and baby drops into the 22nd century!!!
I'd like to ask what you think of your humorous reputation for bad acting.
My gosh people! That was the first question, and when I read it I thought: "my gosh, how crass."
I think he was very nice to not totally blast his answer to that question or be rude in the rest of them after that. So, lemme get this straight, he's interviewed with an opening question of: "So, you suck, what's that like?" And all you people can do is complain about his brevity?!?
I found his answers short, but thoughtful, and wasn't offended in the least.... Stinking whiney babies....
It sure sounds good on paper boys....
I like how your posts get a 2 every time and mine have at best been 0 :) The moderators like your debating me and/or you is one....
Are you implying....
I'm not implying anything. I'm asking questions and rebutting inadequate answers. I do not know the origin of an angler fish (not archer), and maybe a good reading-up on the problems evolution has in describing why that thing 'evolved' a fishing rod would help matters out (oh wait, the "counterintuitive"/just believe it answer). I enjoy watching evolutionists and creationists do fighting retreats on differing issues though.
Let me restate this but this time in cartman's voice: "I am not saying the damn fish was either created or evolved."
I am asking this: prove to me it evolved. So far, it hasn't been proven. Prove it was created -- can't. Can we really prove the origins of anything? Perhaps not. Fine, just admit that. Yes, ultimate proof will come by developing an angler fish. Woe, that's too much to ask. Let's at least get in the ball park then -- hasn't happened yet.
Until something is empirically proven it is theory. I have yet to see evolution -- yes, "see" evolution. I have yet to "see" something created as well. These are both theories. Dammit people, even the Greeks knew how to separate thought from tangibility....
The crux of the argument is that evolution is theory. I keep up with anyone until they cross that point. I enjoy theory, analysis, but whenever someone states, flatly, that a theory is fact -- I'm moving on. At the point that "that" claim is made, then one must deliver. It's basic drag racing. I've seen it myself. "My car is faster than yours." Then get out the pink slips, hand them over to a third party, race, one loses, he owns both cars. Done.
people _have_ "developed" atoms before. You can make helium out of hydrogen given enough energy
Negative, moving atomic particles around is not equivalent to making an atom no more than cooking an omelet makes you a chicken. Do you have kids? I do. It's great to see them think they run the world because they know how to turn the light on or run water from the faucet.
Creationists refuse to evaluate evolution as any sort of possibility for origins. Evolutionists refuse to consider their theory as "theory."
I guess there's a silver-lining though. 500 years ago we'd both have been burned at the stake for what we're saying here....
You're using an abnormally rigourous definition of "faith" here.
Really?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
If an explanation is requested and the answer is to "just believe" in an unsubstantiated theory, then that, my friend, is a request of "faith" as the answer.
If you asked me where I got the aluminum meat-tenderizing hammer (yes, yes, aluminum is bad for us) and I told you I made it in a machine shop and you further inquired with an "explain how" I could probably hand you the drawings, give you a tour of lathe, milling machine and drill press and even go so far as to demonstrate the process on some scrap pieces of metal.
If you further asked me where the aluminum came from I might go on to explain mining, refinery processes, etc., but if you persisted into the origins of its very "stuff," at some point, there would be no knowledge-base on the matter. No one has ever developed an atom much less atomic particles, strings, etc. If there is no tangible demonstration, no empirical example, no "how-to" knowledge-base then the explanation remains theory.
And that, my friend, is the problem I have with all closed-minded thinkers. Until you land your feet on the moon how to get there is theory (and this theory was nicely put to the test). Until dark matter is placed in a petri dish what it actually "is" is theory.
Oh that more scientists would spend a day in the real world....
I can't tell you *how* it evolved
So it's the faith thing again. I'm just supposed to believe. I love how evolutionists catergorize faith as "counterintuitive" and creationists categorize intuitive as "faith."
I'm still waiting on an answer. If you're trying to convince me, then the onus is not on me to convince myself. No amount of "the answer is counterintuitive" or "you can figure it out yourself" will suffice....
I have a better idea. Scientists have literally compiled a mountain of evidence that evolution has occured. Why don't one of you creationists come up with one tinsey, tiny little bit of hard evidence showing that ANY god(s) exist... 1. Bile hinders objective thought. 2. This is a parental "because I said so" answer....
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues persuasively that evolution should be counterintuitive. So it takes "faith" eh? Then why discuss anything? I'm still waiting for answers. I asked the question about the angler fish (ya, that was me -- gotta -1 for that! woohoo!!!). I have honestly been studying, as a novice, both evolution and creationism. I am sick and tired of both sides. You do nothing but bash each other and deride those who don't swear allegiance to your side. I'm an analyst by trade, and a theorist by hobby. I love new theories. When evolutionists, or creationists, spew forth bile instead of answering a question, pure theoretical dialogue becomes impossible. The only real problem I have with evolutionists or creationists (or anyone) is when they claim their theory to be fact. Yes, creationists claim to have facts (evidence ) too. Pretend I'm dumb (not hard), pretend you must talk slowly and deliberately (this'll draw jokes I'm sure), but explain to me how angler fish evolved. This is the one thing creationists discuss that I have yet to hear a good rebuttal from evolutionists on (I don't count the "you can't understand it" explanation above).... Sorry if this is off topic. I guess posts should be directly about the book....
Explain the Angler Fish....
Columbus ambled upon a new continent and didn't even know it. He died believing it was the landmasses of the known east. This is why we don't live in "Columbia" but instead in "America" (the dude that got it right). As one of my professors put it: "Columbus: he didn't know where he was going on his way there; didn't know where he was when he got there, and when he left, he didn't know where he'd been." Columbus was a lot of things. Clueless was one of them....
I dunno for sure, but I think it's where they kept their weed....
Pah! And they say laws are passed by the powerful for the powerful....