Spider Lad

MRSA. C.Dif. Domestication of livestock. Dog breeding.

Creationists are like history deniers, holocaust deniers if you will. In fact the evidence in the case for evolution is far stronger than that that remains for the holocaust. Evolution is plain fact, the evidence is there for you to see should you decide to pull your head out of the sand. I don't care about your religion and I haven't even mentioned it, Joe. All I care about is the truth.

You're obviously a very accomplished and learned scientist and I bow before your superiour knowledge. Yours sincerely, Daniel Leadbetter BSc. (Joe, I seriously suggest you actually take the time to go and learn about evolution before you even think of talking about it. You are totally wrong on every point and your total refusal to look at or accept the evidence just demonstrates plain ignorance. I can point you in the direction of literally hundreds of books to read [not just the one ancient book of hand me down tales] and places you can go and observe the evidence for yourself)

Maybe that goes some way towards explaining his smal minded outlook. The "Eye argument" is an old and flawed one. If the eye is so perfectly formed then why do half the population of the Earth need glasses? I'll tell you why, because it isn't so perfect. In fact it's very badly designed indeed, if you were to subscribe to the idea that it has a designer, which it doesn't. It's quite a bocth up as a result of a series of adaptations. Still quite a remarkable piece of aparatus, but maybe we think that because we depend on it so much. The eye didn't simply spring into existence randomly, and evolution doesn't claim that it did. It is the result of a long line of non-random selection through environmental pressures on survival. Natural selection. Consider the the idea that an eye with only half the function that you're accustomed to would still be more useful than no eye. Then maybe that an organism with even only slightly better functionality would have a definite advantage when it comes to survival and subsequently breeding and the further spread of such genes into the gene pool that result in the greater frequency of better eyesight... I could write pages and pages on this and point you to all the EVIDENCE, but I fear you appear to be a "dyed in the wool" creationist and I may be wasting my time.

I hope you've been watching BBC4 form 10pm tonight!

You are a complete moron. You clearly know nothing about what evolution or natural selection actually is. Your arguments are so childish and short sighted it's difficult to begin to correct you without explaining the whole thing in great detail. Wiki on natural selection

What's wrong with the pursuit of knowledge and understanding? Ignorance of the evidence that is there to explain alot of the reasons you are here and just saying 'it must be god" instead of making the effort to elighten yourself of the truth, now that's a shame.

Why shouldn't your religious views be open to critcism? Just as, say, your political views or your opinions on the arts. Oh, that's right, politics are the arts are real. To question the existence of your big sky fairy is just plain embarassing for you.

Strange that christians seem to have this unspoken respect for other religions despite the total narcicism that surounds their chosen faith being the only/best one. It's like they secretly aknowledge some sort of universal Pascal's wager. In order for their chosen belief to survive criticism they can't (as moderate believers) attack each others choice of faith. They're part of a larger vaguely defined group of believer,m perotect the beleifs of others because it presrves the unquestioned 'respect' for your own whack beliefs.

Commonly referred to as delusion. Just because something is comforting doesn't make it true.

Two girls getting it on in my bed.

You're totally confusing faith and belief. Faith having no grounding in knowing.

I can assure you my friend, this is not open-mindedness. Something closer to blind ignorance, I'd say.

Arew you seroius?!!! Watertight? It's pissing allover the place like an incontinent 90 year old! Look at it's movement on moral stance through the ages. It changes it's stance on any issue according to the shifting moral zeitgeist. There's no real constant to it. It's just self-serving. Even the 'moderate' religious of any faith are contributing towards the permisive culture that allows fundamentalism to thrive. How anyone of 'faith' can claim to be a person of fact and reason is beyond me. How can the one most supposedly most important thing in some peoples lives be the only thing which they don't scrutinise in even the slightest bit of detail. It's some kind of subverted egotism, the need to feel that you're more special. Humans are masters at self delusion, it's a proven survival mechanism. The sooner people open themselves up to discovering the truth and facts that are out there the better. It's only ignorance that allows these ancient superstitions to survive.

It's not just about the spelling. It's about being taken seriously because you don't sound like an illiterate moron.

Yeah, but they knocked me back three times first like...

Actually it's the other way round. Same applies for other infections and diseases. The seem to be a lot of individuals who take some sort of misguided sense of pride in being 'intact'.

That is the shittest Spirograph I have ever seen, David.

Do you really? I'm really glad I'm not you in that case, your life must be really crap if you need that. I find that would only cheapen the time you have. Start making the most of and enjoying the short time you're going to be here.

Ideally a belief is based on some sort of fact or evidence, really what you are talking about is your faith. I'm sure most people would agree that to believe in something with no evidence would be a little bit stupid. Believing (or not believing) in something based on evidence and fact would be, arguably, less stupid. Just because an idea is comforting or useful to you doesn't make it true.

Think about it.

without humans there wouldn't really be the concept of 'beauty', would there?

I said language in which it BELONGS, not derived. Learn to read before you try to assert such small point scoring pettiness.

Wrong. What chauvinism to assume everything has to be in English. You should ideally pronounce a word as it would be pronounced in the language to which it belongs.

Did nobody here go to school? Almost every post above has some sort of glaring grammatical or spelling error. The weak grasp of their own language that some people have often astounds me.