Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 577 578 579 580 581 [582] 583 584 585 586 587 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2016,06:48    Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 27 2016,21:02) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 27 2016,19:44) If theories are no longer tentative then it is fair to base "evolution by natural selection" entirely on what Charles Darwin said. All that has since happened to the theory becomes irrelevant. In cases like this where there is evidence that a premise is describing something that can be explained in scientific context the rules must be the same for all sides. Anything less is scientific misconduct. And pointing fingers at the DI only gives them the attention they want and need. It's way more self-defeating of a tactic than it seems. For anyone who's confused, but not as hopeless as Gary, the idea that all scientific theories are tentative is the upper limit on our confidence.  It does not preclude a lower boundary on what we give the name theory.   A decent amount of evidence + some general consensus < a scientific theory < absolute proof and certainty for all time. Notice the lack of an "or equal to" on the right hand inequality. Gary, of course, will not understand this because he is both uneducated and stubbornly wedded to his belief that he understands science better than actual scientists. You have not demonstrated the attitude of a scientist and it's not even known whether you are really a science teacher. Much of the conflict is being caused by overzealous educators who are using definitions that came from political activists who are more concerned about finding new ways to stop the Discovery Institute. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2016,07:22    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 28 2016,07:48) Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 27 2016,21:02)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 27 2016,19:44) If theories are no longer tentative then it is fair to base "evolution by natural selection" entirely on what Charles Darwin said. All that has since happened to the theory becomes irrelevant. In cases like this where there is evidence that a premise is describing something that can be explained in scientific context the rules must be the same for all sides. Anything less is scientific misconduct. And pointing fingers at the DI only gives them the attention they want and need. It's way more self-defeating of a tactic than it seems. For anyone who's confused, but not as hopeless as Gary, the idea that all scientific theories are tentative is the upper limit on our confidence.  It does not preclude a lower boundary on what we give the name theory.   A decent amount of evidence + some general consensus < a scientific theory < absolute proof and certainty for all time. Notice the lack of an "or equal to" on the right hand inequality. Gary, of course, will not understand this because he is both uneducated and stubbornly wedded to his belief that he understands science better than actual scientists. You have not demonstrated the attitude of a scientist and it's not even known whether you are really a science teacher. Much of the conflict is being caused by overzealous educators who are using definitions that came from political activists who are more concerned about finding new ways to stop the Discovery Institute. You are demonstrably not qualified to judge. You are not a scientist, by any stretch of the imagination. You wouldn't recognize evidence if it were handed to you in a handsome presentation case labeled 'Evidence' with gold embossed letters and letters of attestation by hundreds of renowned and acknowledged scientists. You've nicely proven Texas Teach's point.  And let us note that his response was to your non-sequitur.  You know nothing about science, you are barely able to copy/paste bits of science-sounding trivia and act as if you were the first to discover it or to see its value. Your bitterness over your incompetence is vividly demonstrated over the last couple of pages. So what do you do with that bitterness?  Motivate yourself to learn more and do better?  Or prattle on with an endless series of non sequiturs and allusions to the lack of abilities of others. The flaws or failures of others have nothing to do with the question of whether you have merit. You simply do not. There is no conflict. No one disagrees with your 'fundamental premise' (stolen from others) that 'some features of the universe are best explained by intelligent cause'.  No one. What we'd really like you to grapple with is how to determine which features those are, out of all of the features of the universe.  How does one tell? You haven't a clue. And you could then proceed to grapple with the question of exactly what counts as an 'intelligent cause'.  Is the phrase even precise ?  Or is it a generalization?  What is being generalized? Is 'intelligence' a thing, an event, a process?  Is it an attribute or a fully-qualified entity in its own right? You don't even know what questions to ask, and you act as if that were proof of your qualifications to having solved the problems. Yet there is literally no one who believes that you have a solution to anything, nor any idea of what it is that needs to be solved.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2016,18:08    Quote You have not demonstrated the attitude of a scientist Lie.  (Not that you have demonstrated any understanding of this anyway.)   Quote  and it's not even known whether you are really a science teacher.  Yet another unsupported assertion from you.  If you have some valid evidence, cite it.   Quote Much of the conflict is being caused by overzealous educators who are using definitions that came from political activists who are more concerned about finding new ways to stop the Discovery Institute.  And another mash-up of unsupported and unsupportable assertions from you.  The words sound serious, but you have previously demonstrated that you are as clueless about definitions as you are about science in general.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2016,08:53    Quote Much of the conflict is being caused by overzealous educators who are using definitions that came from political activists who are more concerned about finding new ways to stop the Discovery Institute. The quasi-Discovery Institute is not a scientific organisation in any sense of the word "Science". They are an out-and-out religious and political lobby group. They do no research, do not contribute anything to human knowledge. Nobody is trying to stop them as they have never moved. When are you going to use any definitions at all, Gaulin? Your rubbish has none. I believe this is so you can plagiarise true scientific research and not be called out on it. Your total output of many years cannot be used for any aspect of cognitive science and your model is at best a poor imitation of Pacman. There is nothing of value to any science in your bullshit. Scrap the whole thing and concentrate on digging yourself and family out of the mess you have caused by your obsessions.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2016,12:52    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 28 2016,06:48) Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 27 2016,21:02)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 27 2016,19:44) If theories are no longer tentative then it is fair to base "evolution by natural selection" entirely on what Charles Darwin said. All that has since happened to the theory becomes irrelevant. In cases like this where there is evidence that a premise is describing something that can be explained in scientific context the rules must be the same for all sides. Anything less is scientific misconduct. And pointing fingers at the DI only gives them the attention they want and need. It's way more self-defeating of a tactic than it seems. For anyone who's confused, but not as hopeless as Gary, the idea that all scientific theories are tentative is the upper limit on our confidence.  It does not preclude a lower boundary on what we give the name theory.   A decent amount of evidence + some general consensus < a scientific theory < absolute proof and certainty for all time. Notice the lack of an "or equal to" on the right hand inequality. Gary, of course, will not understand this because he is both uneducated and stubbornly wedded to his belief that he understands science better than actual scientists. You have not demonstrated the attitude of a scientist and it's not even known whether you are really a science teacher. Much of the conflict is being caused by overzealous educators who are using definitions that came from political activists who are more concerned about finding new ways to stop the Discovery Institute. This from the guy who assures us that he has hundreds, if not thousands, of experimenters using his little toy program, but can't produce any of them.  But he thinks I used my time machine to go back and claim to be a teacher years before he arrived here just to discredit him?  Gary, your double standards are showing. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2016,13:00    Gary's too poor for standards. Like scruples and integrity, he can't afford them.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2016,16:02    Quote (NoName @ Oct. 29 2016,13:00) Gary's too poor for standards. Like scruples and integrity, he can't afford them. The thing about scruples, standards, integrity, and honesty is that they don't actually cost anything to acquire and to use, and unless you are in the comparatively rare position of something like standing up to a Hitler, their cost is mostly only inconvenience and foregoing shortcuts and quick profits.  It's not that Gary can't afford them, but just that he doesn't like them.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2016,16:26    Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 30 2016,17:02) Quote (NoName @ Oct. 29 2016,13:00) Gary's too poor for standards. Like scruples and integrity, he can't afford them. The thing about scruples, standards, integrity, and honesty is that they don't actually cost anything to acquire and to use, and unless you are in the comparatively rare position of something like standing up to a Hitler, their cost is mostly only inconvenience and foregoing shortcuts and quick profits.  It's not that Gary can't afford them, but just that he doesn't like them. Agreed, the cost isn't money. But take it as "Gary can't afford to acknowledge criticism of his work" because to do so would shatter his delusions of adequacy. And thus his lack of scruples, integrity, and the rest of the virtues.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2016,18:59    Quote (NoName @ Oct. 30 2016,16:26)   Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 30 2016,17:02)   Quote (NoName @ Oct. 29 2016,13:00) Gary's too poor for standards. Like scruples and integrity, he can't afford them. The thing about scruples, standards, integrity, and honesty is that they don't actually cost anything to acquire and to use, and unless you are in the comparatively rare position of something like standing up to a Hitler, their cost is mostly only inconvenience and foregoing shortcuts and quick profits.  It's not that Gary can't afford them, but just that he doesn't like them. Agreed, the cost isn't money. But take it as "Gary can't afford to acknowledge criticism of his work" because to do so would shatter his delusions of adequacy. And thus his lack of scruples, integrity, and the rest of the virtues. Too true. Not relevant, but I like it:- Groucho Marx:  "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, ..... well, I have others."

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2016,02:46    Fine then. The Discovery Institute won. Now go give each other an award, for your outstanding scientific achievement. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2016,04:21    Quote You have not demonstrated the attitude of a scientist[..] How would you know, Gaulin? You are not, and never have been, a scientist. Your not-a-theory shows that. You do not know what 'evidence' means, you do not use definitions and your English comprehension is abysmal.     Quote Posted on Nov. 01 2016,02:46 Fine then. The Discovery Institute won. No it hasn't. The Disco'tute has won nothing. They, like you, are not scientists. They, like you, start with the presupposition of a god(s) and go from there. This is so removed from science as to be in a different universe. If you do not support the DI remove their stupid "intelligent design not natural selection' shtick from your 'theory'. Better still, use your science to prove that there is an Intelligent Designer. Then fame and fortune awaits! That is what you want, isn't it? Until then your pseudoscience is useless and can be lumped with Global Warming denial, the Anti-vax movement and even the Time Cube guy as an irrelevant waste of time.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2016,06:05    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2016,02:46) Fine then. The Discovery Institute won. That's a great way of demonstrating your inability at making valid arguments.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2016,07:07    Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 01 2016,07:05) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2016,02:46) Fine then. The Discovery Institute won. That's a great way of demonstrating your inability at making valid arguments. If it weren't for non sequiturs, Gary would have no responses at all.  That being unthinkable to an attention whore such as he, well, non sequiturs he shall emit. One does have to wonder how the heck he gets from anything posted to or about him on this page to "the Discovery Institute won." I sometimes wonder if Gary is decerebrate and suffering from what we might call, in analogy to 'phantom limb', phantom mind syndrome.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2016,09:11    Quote (NoName @ Nov. 01 2016,05:07)   Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 01 2016,07:05)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2016,02:46) Fine then. The Discovery Institute won. That's a great way of demonstrating your inability at making valid arguments. If it weren't for non sequiturs, Gary would have no responses at all.  That being unthinkable to an attention whore such as he, well, non sequiturs he shall emit. One does have to wonder how the heck he gets from anything posted to or about him on this page to "the Discovery Institute won." I sometimes wonder if Gary is decerebrate and suffering from what we might call, in analogy to 'phantom limb', phantom mind syndrome. and I thank you, NoName, for my next band name. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2016,11:35    Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2016,10:11) Quote (NoName @ Nov. 01 2016,05:07)   Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 01 2016,07:05)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2016,02:46) Fine then. The Discovery Institute won. That's a great way of demonstrating your inability at making valid arguments. If it weren't for non sequiturs, Gary would have no responses at all.  That being unthinkable to an attention whore such as he, well, non sequiturs he shall emit. One does have to wonder how the heck he gets from anything posted to or about him on this page to "the Discovery Institute won." I sometimes wonder if Gary is decerebrate and suffering from what we might call, in analogy to 'phantom limb', phantom mind syndrome. and I thank you, NoName, for my next band name. I'd listen to that band ;-)

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2016,06:49    In case you did not know: the remaining conflict at Reddit is long over. This is how the model relates to "Phenotypic plasticity": www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/59jpmz/when_can_a_mutation_or_adaptive_change_become/d99clw8/ The theory is also getting more (human) reads than ever. Ignoring and stoning with insults in a forum like this one will not change that. In this case it's best for the (mostly) religiously motivated politics to be as obvious as possible. In that regard things are going very well. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2016,06:57    So interaction with exactly one person on Reddit who was interested in someone else's paper signals the downfall of evolutionary biology? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2016,08:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2016,07:49) In case you did not know: the remaining conflict at Reddit is long over. Citation needed. Also a rather hasty generalization.  Reddit exists largely by, on and for the purpose of conflict.  Conflict at Reddit is business as usual and so there is such thing as 'the remaining conflict is long over'.  If you had a specific conflict in mind, you should reference it, because conflict remains at Reddit.   Quote This is how the model relates to "Phenotypic plasticity": There is no 'the model'.  You haven't got a model in your "theory" nor does your software represent an implementation of your "theory".  By a considerable stretch one might allow your software to be referred to as a 'model' but it is no more a model of any aspect of the actual-factual real world than a lego model of the Deathstar would be. Worse, you continue to commit the map/territory confusion of assuming that any matchup between the output of your program and some actual behavior in nature means that you have modeled the way nature gets to the point of exhibiting the allegedly matching behavior. That's simply false.  And foolish.   Quote The theory is also getting more (human) reads than ever. Citation needed.   Quote Ignoring and stoning with insults in a forum like this one will not change that. Perhaps not, but the critical commentary based on solid, and repeated, and confirmed, analysis of the myriad flaws of your document and your software will. Not that such is needed as you've garnered exactly zero support in a decade on line.   Quote In this case it's best for the (mostly) religiously motivated politics to be as obvious as possible. In that regard things are going very well. You have yet to demonstrate that the critical analyses made of your effluent are based in either politics or religion.  Yes, politics and religion have both been demonstrated to be  part and parcel of the American 'Intelligent Design' pseudo-conflict.  Amongst the many things missed by your hasty generalization is that no one other than yourself considers your work to be any part of the broad 'Intelligent Design' [wasted] effort. In fact, you have yet to grapple with the myriad flaws that have been pointed out. Your work is, at best, vapid, banal, trivial, and useless. Your vaunted 'premise' is entirely uncontroversial and has been for millennia. Your refusal to clarify the generalizations in that 'premise' render it useless.

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2016,10:44    'Twas writ:   Quote stoning with insults Too Rolling Stoned was Robin Trower.  I think you mean another kind of stoning.  Does your 'theory' cover the munchies? Clap for the Wolfman, now, he's almost as much of a hoot as you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2016,10:57    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2016,06:49) In case you did not know: the remaining conflict at Reddit is long over. This is how the model relates to "Phenotypic plasticity": www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/59jpmz/when_can_a_mutation_or_adaptive_change_become/d99clw8/ The theory is also getting more (human) reads than ever. Ignoring and stoning with insults in a forum like this one will not change that. In this case it's best for the (mostly) religiously motivated politics to be as obvious as possible. In that regard things are going very well. On that thread, DarwinZDF42 provides good information (which you still deny) to some people who are between not knowledgeable and downright confused about evolutionary biology.  There is no particular response of any significance to your nonsense -you got another response along the lines of "Will read it when I have time, thanks".

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2016,15:32    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2016,06:49) The theory is also getting more (human) reads than ever. It might be getting more views but you have no way of knowing who's actually reading it past the first few muddled paragraphs. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,06:06    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 02 2016,06:57) So interaction with exactly one person on Reddit who was interested in someone else's paper signals the downfall of evolutionary biology? Non-sequitur. And FYI: www.reddit.com/user/GaryGaulin -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,06:16    Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 02 2016,10:44) 'Twas writ:     Quote stoning with insults Too Rolling Stoned was Robin Trower.  I think you mean another kind of stoning.  Does your 'theory' cover the munchies? Clap for the Wolfman, now, he's almost as much of a hoot as you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)  :)  :)  :)  :) From earlier:   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 02 2016,09:23) If Jesus were alive today then he would likely love how this one humorously makes his point about primitive "stoning" type behavior making thee no better than a dumb monkey. atheistzoo.blogspot.com/2011/02/intelligent-design-colouring-book.html Enjoy your Sunday! -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,06:47    It really is true that all Gary has to offer is a series of disconnected non sequiturs. Phantom brain syndrome indeed.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,07:38    Quote It really is true that all Gary has to offer is a series of disconnected non sequiturs. Phantom brain syndrome indeed. Gaulin would think (for a given value of 'think') it a luxury to have a phantom brain?

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,09:37    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2016,06:16) Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 02 2016,10:44) 'Twas writ:       Quote stoning with insults Too Rolling Stoned was Robin Trower.  I think you mean another kind of stoning.  Does your 'theory' cover the munchies? Clap for the Wolfman, now, he's almost as much of a hoot as you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)  :)  :)  :)  :) From earlier:   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 02 2016,09:23) If Jesus were alive today then he would likely love how this one humorously makes his point about primitive "stoning" type behavior making thee no better than a dumb monkey. atheistzoo.blogspot.com/2011/02/intelligent-design-colouring-book.html Enjoy your Sunday! Gary's way of saying "Facts are mean." Yes, Gary, trying to teach you the truth is persecution.  For the teachers, anyway. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,11:09    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 03 2016,07:37) Yes, Gary, trying to teach you the truth is persecution.  For the teachers, anyway. When Texas Teach dies and goes to hell, he's going to find himself in a classroom.  With Gaulin as his only student.  For eternity. -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,11:15    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2016,10:09) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 03 2016,07:37) Yes, Gary, trying to teach you the truth is persecution.  For the teachers, anyway. When Texas Teach dies and goes to hell, he's going to find himself in a classroom.  With Gaulin as his only student.  For eternity. OMG!

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,12:43    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2016,11:09) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 03 2016,07:37) Yes, Gary, trying to teach you the truth is persecution.  For the teachers, anyway. When Texas Teach dies and goes to hell, he's going to find himself in a classroom.  With Gaulin as his only student.  For eternity. Now that's intelligent design (of hell). Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,18:53    Texas Teach dies and goes to hell.  One of the lesser devils is prodding him with a pitchfork, pushing him past sulfur pits that are belching flames and which are filled with people screaming in agony, but suddenly TT sees Gary sitting on a bench off to the side, engaging in excited conversation with an incredibly beautiful woman.  TT protests, "This is hugely unfair.  I've spent my life doing my best to educate our young people, but I end up in hell and I have to roast here for all eternity, while Gaulin gets to spend it with a beautiful woman."  The devil yells at him to shut up, pokes him even harder with the pitchfork, and screams, "Who do you think you are to question that poor woman's punishment?" The European heaven is where the English are the policemen, the French are the cooks, the German are the mechanics, the Swiss are the bureaucrats, and the Italians are the lovers.   The European hell is where the German are the policemen, the English are the cooks, the French are the mechanics, the Swiss are the lovers, and the Italians are the managers. An engineer dies and shows up in front of the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his giant book and says, "Ah, you're an engineer. You are in the wrong place."  So, the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in. Pretty soon, the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts designing and building improvements. After a while, they've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and the engineer is a pretty popular guy. A bit later, God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, "So, how's it going down there in hell?"  Satan replies, "Hey, things are going great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next."  God replies, "What? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake. He should never have gotten down there; send him up here."  Satan replies, "No way.  I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him."  God's angry, says, "Send him back up here or I'll sue." Satan laughs uproariously and answers, "Yeah, right. And just where are you going to get a lawyer?"

Pages: (622) < ... 577 578 579 580 581 [582] 583 584 585 586 587 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard