Sayonara

You should hear the screams.

I did think of that one, but in that circumstance I think I'd be caring about what they do (and possibly say), rather than what they think. There is not much of a creationist scene over here because we push them off cliffs, so I can only imagine what it must be like having people of that persuasion trying to make decisions for you.

"Not trying to fix the world" doesn't require exploitation.

That usually happens if the session times out, but I have noticed it happening randomly too on odd occassions.

There are several such programmes underway in Europe right now, so give it a decade or so and there'll be some good population dynamics data.

ATM has 3 windows installations on top of each other - 1 win2k and 2 XP. It's the most concentrated source of windows radiation in the area.

The definition really ought to be "everything that we can access".

Seriously, I am wondering what route you took between the two thoughts. I don't see the connection.

Indeed.

Since when were caring and intrigue mutually exclusive? What has not caring what creationists think got to do with discounting god? If that's to me (and, indeed, in light of the start of this post), perhaps you might look at the dozens of other threads on this topic before condemning people based on opinions that you think they have.

I hardly think you consider the ball to be in my court when you send a provocative pm like that. If you have an "intention to keep it private" you won't mind stopping trailing me around, posting vapid and snide comments after every one of my posts. Or go one better and keep it in your head - that's pretty private. None. The first thing I'd do (assuming I cared enough to do it, which I don't) is derive a working definition of what consciousness is, which nobody seems to be able to successfully do. Assuming we had such a definition we would then need a way of identifying such a condition. I would not necessarily pigeon-hole it as something that can be explained purely in evolutionary terms (depending on how much you stretch the definition of evolution, obviously). However, if I did, the causes for consciousness apparently being unique to humans need not be considered any differently to the causes of any other unique characteristics in any other species.

What you need is a wolf reintroduction program. Then at least you may have a proper reason for hunting at some point

I just installed an update for Mandrake 10 using a LAN cable, and my WAN card suddenly started working. Buh-byeeee windows.

I am currently doing that very degree with these guys. I'm not sure how their prices compare with others Internationally though.

Personally, I'd much rather see deer, stags, bears etc being deer, stags and bears, and doing deer, stag and bear things, rather than seeing them falling down dead, struggling in traps, or bouncing around on the back of some guy's 4x4.

I think we need more threads on this. Not fewer, more.

Does anyone who isn't a creationist actually care what creationists think?

To fail to assume that a rabbit is conscious is not the same as assuming that no animals are conscious, so your premise is invalid. Humans evolving consciousness does not necessarily require a "big jump" in evolution, nor can it be measured against other species, so your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Then you must be some sort of idiot, and I think we can narrow that down further, can't we?

1000 - 25.

So... who knows anything about the candidates then?

Use the "new posts" link if you're logged in.

No, I mean why. As in what specifically is the trigger for the collapse.

The former.

What determines the degree?