Sayonara

He said if 50 million fools agree on a foolish idea, Freeman is a lazy google-shy fooly fool. According to my sources anyway.

For the majority of Gmail users, you were probably right the first time: http://www.sayonara.info/blog/archives/000029.php The worst part is that most people won't realise that it is bad for them. People who understand the service better though will get a lot out of being members.

Whereas all you're doing is trying to give people seizures. Pot, kettle, blackness that sucks in the light.

What has philosophy got to do with mass systems?

What are "Proven Chances Of Life"? Isn't that something of a contradiction? Or do you mean that the chances of life have "been proven to be... (n)"? And if so, where is this proof?

He appears to agree with you, despite the slightly odd post #18.

Does this mean that there is a creationist with the same name as the Senior Research Fellow in biochemistry who comes up first on google? Because that's the guy who wrote the book that was being referenced.

You're assuming that the mouths of the wormhole are points A and B. I am not.

Tha one could work if you were able to generate a wormhole. But under those conditions I guess it wouldn't count as something that is "not in reality".

I am well-presented*. * not necessarily true.

1) Find out as much as you can about paleantology, the fossil record, and why the gaps exist. There are (believe it or not, constructive) discussions all over the place about this. It's most likely he's using a flawed idea of how the fossil record is composed. He's definitely using a flawed idea of what transitionals are. Challenge him to define for you exactly what he will accept as being a transitional. In his view, what would be different enough to be a different species but similar enough to be related? How does he know from looking at one fossil and then at another identical fossil from 500,000 years later that one does not have a crucially advantageous difference in its internal biology that we would consider to have caused speciation? We know that happens, why would anyone randomly decide it could not happen in Archaeopteryx, or any other extinct species? That should screw him up a bit. He'll try and tell you that it's your job as the proponent of evolution to provide that information - don't let him, because he has to demonstrate he understands what he is arguing. 2) ALL INDIVIDUALS OF ALL SPECIES EVER are or were transitional. His misunderstanding of simple evolutionary principles don't make evolution "wrong". If he disagrees, again ask him what makes a transitional species (other than relatively applied hindsight), and what makes a non-transitional species. 3) Firstly, he needs to cite sources for that. Don't accept anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed or accepted by the paleantological community. Secondly, "That means that it wasn't even an intermediate" is wrong, because of (2) above.

Jesus. Considering I was only being glib to begin with anyway, you've certainly chosen an interestng route to go down. An ability to use Microsoft word is usually acquired after one learns English, and if it does affect knowledge of that language in any way I'd expect it's only in that it makes people lazier. Patterns of peer review are not governed by geography, by the way. ANYWAY, he is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago, New Zealand. The book the quote is taken from is nearly twenty years old and based on, and he's no paleantologist - he's a biochemist. Information on "X has never been found" may well be out of date by now, if it wasn't then. It's a bad source that was googled by someone specifically trying to prove a pre-determined conclusion. There are probably good sources out there for evidencing either side, but that post Mikel quoted hasn't been near any.

No, but it does mean he hasn't bothered to proof-read, get anything typeset, or pass it through peer-review. The bottom line is that someone who tries to use words like myriad (which has more complex rules than the average collective noun) without bothering to find out how probably ain't that smart.

Astronomy deals with the universe in terms of stars and their movement etc. Cosmology deals with everything else that's out there.

Isn't it 01 (etc) less?

What, destroying the credibiity of that guy's source isn't going to help? Think before you post.

Literaly speaking, astronomy is 'of the stars' and cosmology is 'of the cosmos'.

This thread advertised an end to the debates. I want my money back.

Anyone who puts an "s" on the end of the word myriad is not to be trusted academically under any circumstance.

Well, the point really is "look how the mass-murdering fuck who the USA and UK didn't spend years demonising and who doesn't have a good chunk of the world's oil under his patio doesn't have the far-Western mob braying for a swift, seat-of-the-pants trial and the most unpleasant fate possible".

lol A lot of the time I post things that look like a dispute rather than just 'adding thoughts', like in that "are heterosexuals homophobic" thread that's going on now.

Okay, I've had a think while I was doing my ironing and I have put it in a different way. By the way, my original post was more like adding on to yours rather than disputing it. Here goes: I tend to agree. If the opposite case were true, and unsolicited advances or unwelcome acts from homosexuals caused homophobia, we'd also have a social concept of "heterophobia".

Pinch was only a pseudoscientist because he wouldn't accept his physics was all wrong. What you want is someone with style.

At least, according to the current model. There's evidence to support that, but it doesn't make it a flat fact.