RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:46   

have you seen Deadman return?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:51   

AFDave, it seems, has migrated to IIDB.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:54   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:46)
have you seen Deadman return?

I think he's too disgusted with the moderation at the Dawkins site. And although I'm still there (I'm really too mild-mannered to show up on the mods' radar), I have to agree with him.

Compared to what in my opinion is the superb job of moderation Stevestory does here, the moderation at the Dawkins site is a joke. We recently were told that accusations, even supported by evidence, were off-limits. So even if AirFarceDave, everyone's favorite pet tardiste, makes clearly false statements, it's off-limits to call him on them, even if you support your claims of dishonesty with evidence.

Goofy.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,00:00   

Quote
Goofy.

yup.

I'm a bit worried about Deadman, though.

nobody seems to have heard from him in a few weeks now.

post back if you see him post anywhere, so we at least know he's still around and about.

he might have gotten busy getting ready to make the jump to NZ, but something seems not quite right.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,05:57   

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,21:52)
FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.

Penny,

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Ok you have won another prize. This is right on the money again. I'm running out of cheques!

Louis

P.S. FTK that isn't nasty btw, being educable speaks as much to attitude (i.e. something over which one has some control) as much as ability (less so).

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,06:03   

The moderation at RDF is goofy indeed. I'm having a "conversation" with one of their admins by email at the moment after I worked spectacularly hard to get banned. The conversation thus far has consisted of him agreeing with me and then merely repeating the same claims that he's just agreed are false. Apparently the RDF are not part of this universe, their physics and logic are different.

I'm really conflicted about it as it happens because I want to believe that I am dealing with a sane and honest and intelligent human being who is merely mistaken. Sad thing is I think I'm wrong about at least one of those.

Louis

P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,11:55   

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,05:57)
 
Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,21:52)
FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.

Penny,

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Ok you have won another prize. This is right on the money again. I'm running out of cheques!

Louis

P.S. FTK that isn't nasty btw, being educable speaks as much to attitude (i.e. something over which one has some control) as much as ability (less so).

Well spoken, Penny and Louis

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,12:47   

Excellent.  I will try to answer your questions, Ftk.  Now, I am no biologist, just an actor, but I'm going to explain this in my own words, without linking to anything.  You should try this once in a while--I'm not poking at you, here.  But if you write posts and comments in your own words and actually address the issues you'll find two things happen:

1.  Your brain engages and you start to think critically about the issues.

2.  You reveal your level of understanding of the issues.  At this point, other people can step in and help you more easily because they know the specifics of where to start.  This will now be seen as the more knowledgeable people here correct my following comment.

[QUOTE]Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

Quote
2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.


As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

Now, an evolutionist, working from common descent, notices that there are similarities between whales and hippos (not something that is apparent at first thought, perhaps).  Continuing to research this, they find morphological similarities between the two that add credence to CD.

Quote
Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?


The key here is understanding of the classification system--the why.  A creationist can say with confidence that "these things are similar, I have looked at them".  Now he asks why.  His answer is that the Designer made them that way.  Now, did the designer:

1.  use similar parts to make their bodies look the same, but their organs are arranged differently?
2.  use similar parts to make their immune systems work similarly, but their body plans are completely dissimilar?
3.  come up with a completely new way to provide a similar function?  what is the Designer's goal--the same parts?  the same ends?  how do we know?

The theory of common design requires us to know what the purpose of the Designer is.  This is something that IDers say cannot be done.  If it cannot be done, how can we possibly use the theory of common design?  If the Designer is unknown and unknowable, the theory of common design is useless from the get-go.

Now, the theory of common descent allows us to structure the plethora of living things into a knowable order.  Using this knowable order we can predict traits, proteins, and abilities that things in this order may have by comparing them to other things that have a common ancestor.

A common design theory doesn't let us know what the commonality might be.  We simply can't know before hand, unless we steal the blueprints from the designer.  We only know what the similarity is AFTER finding it.

A common descent theory allows us to say "hey, we might find this sort of thing here, because other things that are close to it in the hierarchy also have it.  We predict what we might find BEFORE looking for it, by an educated guess, not blind guessing.

Quote
Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?


Yes.  Sometimes he will be wrong, but he has a much better chance of being right than a creationist operating from a notion of common design.  By looking up the hierarchy, he can make educated guesses as to what he will find as he works his way down the hierachy--BEFORE observing the trees.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,12:55   

Quote (blipey @ June 11 2007,12:47)
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

As supplemental reading associated with this particular thought, you might look at a previous ATBC thread that featured a sporadic and short lived appearance by a bona fide Fellow of the Discovery Institute.  I present to you, Cornelius Hunter.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,13:17   

Quote
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.


actually, Lamarck could be considered someone who produced theories to explain evolution.

rather I was more interested in seeing what she thought an "evolutionist" actually was, and to see where she thought theories to explain evolution existed LONG before Darwin.

secondarily, even these theories that existed shortly before and during Darwin are FAR different than the proposals of creationists.

thirdly, I was hoping she would actually see that the proposals of creationists have NOT changed since "Long before Darwin", and why that is so.

The reason i bother to explain this is that it's extremely unlikely she would have ever bothered to explore her own statement for veracity anyway.

uneducable, indeed.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,19:52   

My $.02:

This is a link to an easy to read, easy to understand basic evolution site developed at Berkeley.

I like to look at pictures, so this is perfect for me, and it may even help others that are interested in learing how evo really works.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Once we get past the basics, then we can go on to a more meaningful discussion of why ID is NOT science.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,19:56   

yeah, the paleo guys at Berkeley started that a few years after I left.

lots of good resources there.

I think PT also provides a link to that site, under the "evolution resources" tab.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,20:44   

The Berkeley UCMP "Understanding Evolution" site was developed with NCSE as a consulting partner.

I think the UCMP is/was being sued over that. I'll have to ask someone how that is going.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10393
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,20:48   

What's the suit about?

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,20:54   

ditto steve's question.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:04   

Somebody didn't like that the UCMP site, produced with NSF funding, put the fact that there are a lot of Christian believers who have no problem with evolutionary science within the site. They were claiming this violated the constitution on establishment grounds.

About the last word on the topic was that there was a dismissal in 2006, and I seem to recall that the plaintiff said she would appeal that ruling. I don't know about more recent activity.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:08   

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,06:03)
The moderation at RDF is goofy indeed. I'm having a "conversation" with one of their admins by email at the moment after I worked spectacularly hard to get banned. The conversation thus far has consisted of him agreeing with me and then merely repeating the same claims that he's just agreed are false. Apparently the RDF are not part of this universe, their physics and logic are different.

I'm really conflicted about it as it happens because I want to believe that I am dealing with a sane and honest and intelligent human being who is merely mistaken. Sad thing is I think I'm wrong about at least one of those.

Louis

P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

Oh, boy. Tell me about it. I've been commenting there for the past few months, and it's got to the stage where I've pretty much had enough.

The final straw was this thread by Bodhi:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16655

RD.net calls itself a "clear-thinking oasis", but not only do they allow people like Bodhi to post brainless drivel, but the moderators threaten anyone who understandably ridicules such tard with a ban!

They allow certifiable morons to shit in the water source and defile the coconuts, rather than telling them to disappear back into the desert. Some oasis.


Although I don't comment here very often, I do read the threads most days, and I have to say, Wes and Steve's moderation is damned good.

And not only is this a great oasis of reasoned thought, but also of great humour. Keep it up guys. It's very much appreciated.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2007,21:04)
Somebody didn't like that the UCMP site, produced with NSF funding, put the fact that there are a lot of Christian believers who have no problem with evolutionary science within the site. They were claiming this violated the constitution on establishment grounds.

About the last word on the topic was that there was a dismissal in 2006, and I seem to recall that the plaintiff said she would appeal that ruling. I don't know about more recent activity.

ah!

the way your first post was worded, for some reason i was thinking NCSE was suing for copyright infringement or something.

just more nutters suing berkeley then.

meh, nothing new there.

what would be really funny, is if those suing under the establishment clause asked the ACLU to help them.

heh.

but of course, since it clearly has nothing to do with the establishment clause, the ACLU would have refused.

but then, those filing suit likely knew that before they even filed it.

just being morons wanting to prove a non-existent point, most likely.

oh, wait, I just had an evil thought...

they should contact Larry Farfromsane to be on their legal team!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10393
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:46   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 11 2007,00:54)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:46)
have you seen Deadman return?

I think he's too disgusted with the moderation at the Dawkins site. And although I'm still there (I'm really too mild-mannered to show up on the mods' radar), I have to agree with him.

Compared to what in my opinion is the superb job of moderation Stevestory does here, the moderation at the Dawkins site is a joke. We recently were told that accusations, even supported by evidence, were off-limits. So even if AirFarceDave, everyone's favorite pet tardiste, makes clearly false statements, it's off-limits to call him on them, even if you support your claims of dishonesty with evidence.

Goofy.

I have a much easier job than they do. I only have to be consistent with myself. That's hard enough. They have to be consistent with other moderators, which is much harder.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10393
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2007,21:48   

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2007,01:46   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,22:00)
 
Quote
Goofy.

yup.

I'm a bit worried about Deadman, though.

nobody seems to have heard from him in a few weeks now.

post back if you see him post anywhere, so we at least know he's still around and about.

He posted tonight on one of Dave's many threads. So he's still alive, and evidently was busy on some writing project.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2007,02:14   

thanks eric,

i'll try a bit harder to reach him.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,08:52   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:26   

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:44   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

seconded. FTK has repeated this claim so often that not to back it up is, well, just not on, ok?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:58   

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 13 2007,11:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
 
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!

Black Hole Beer: Get it down, and you'll never get it up.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

not only that, but she has that "basic" biology text that you sent her to pour through.

of course, she'll never bother to even open it because it's "beneath" her level of knowledge.

I do hope that folks are at least beginning to realize why I keep recommending she seek therapy.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10393
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:40   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,14:29)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 13 2007,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.

I feel obligated to remind FtK that I, and several other folks, have asked her to provide an example of unwarranted speculation (i.e. speculation that is not labeled as such) in that textbook. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but so far she has ignored it. So I am asking again. Please back up this statement with some evidence, or retract it.

thanks in advance

not only that, but she has that "basic" biology text that you sent her to pour through.

of course, she'll never bother to even open it because it's "beneath" her level of knowledge.

I do hope that folks are at least beginning to realize why I keep recommending she seek therapy.

I remember once offering to send a creationist an old College Biology 101 textbook of mine, so he would at least switch from utterly ignorant wrong arguments to slightly informed wrong arguments. His response? "Why should I spend time reading that stuff when I can already refute all the science?"


   
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:48   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,19:49)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)
Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.




BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.

Hi Steven,
just thought I'd pick up on your point and say ditto (though for me it was simply talk origins and a few good posts on a discussion forum that did it).

Again, it was just following the evidence. There was no assumption on my part: like all of a sudden I was going to just assume that we evolved instead (wow look, it too fits!!!). My assumption already was that we were specially created yadayada...

But the evidence, well that was pretty strong. Overwhelming in-fact. Damn those chromosomes!

Rather than a conversion, it would probably be right to call it a "lifting of weight". It was a wow moment for sure.

Afterwards I think it took me about three days to have a meaningful conversation about anything (I probably spent the meantime racing the world's best F1 cars playing GP2).

Glad you had a mind for the opening. Thus begins an enlightenment.

Cheers
Spags

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
  748 replies since June 10 2007,02:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]