Atheism

Funny you should mention that.

I think an atheist comedian went door to door a year or two back in Salt Lake City to see what kind of welcome he'd receive at the door.

Interesting how unwelcome an unsolicited visitor was to the Mormons...

A
R
T

Yeah, well, that's what they do to other folks, not what's supposed to happen to them . . .

Yeah, was gonna post that:

Now that was pretty high-larious . . .

I don't approve of people going from door to door for any reason other than for emergency safety evacuations without a licence and without ID. It is illegal here because it disturbs night workers, the sick and elderly, and annoys most people almost beyond their patience.

But at least it is more democratic than issuing statements from behind closed doors to which no answer can be given as the NCSE does. And even if an answer can be given it is so easily put on Ignore in order to avoid having to deal with it. At least it looks the enemy in the face which Setanta is scared of doing.

His having me on Ignore is a compliment to the power of my argument. Watch him jump on those who have weak arguments though.

You love to say things like this. It's perhaps your most cherished thought. Precious.

A
R
T

All this, while the majority of posters on a2k challenge what he says regularly - if not every day. Some people have built a wall around themselves to see only the little bit of positive feedback they get - from time to time.

He can't even translate Ignore for its true meaning.

As i have repeatedly said, i don't "have anyone on ignore." It really is no problem at all simply not to read the drivel Spurious routinely pumps out.

<chuckles at this as a comedic concept.. maybe not in the doing>


Ok, ok, it was funny.

Ah, John Safran. National treasure. He broadcasts a show nationally on Triple J on sunday nights http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/safran/ with co-host Father Bob, a catholic priest and national treasure. As I said earlier I think Australia has a bit more tolerance, at least between christians and atheists.

Not at all fa. I much prefer it if my posts are read and argued with. I'm up for open debate. Don't try pretending you're on the intellectual high ground by supporting those who are scared of doing that with silly assertions of that infantile nature. I'm there to be shot down. That Setanta can't do it is the only reason he has me on Ignore, or fast scroll, which is the same thing. He's eager to shoot down the sitting ducks. Have you not noticed. He's a typical big girl's blouse and that's all there is to it.

It was on halloween.

All them atheist kids just asked "trick or treat." Were you scared?

Should I be? Why do you ask?

Hi Soz - I hadn't realised that in my pref's I'd blocked out people's sigs! Changed it and got a shock when I read my own. Flattered and embarrassed by yours.

Hee! It's a nice line.

Acquired Characteristics


Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when[environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Still no cigar, pahu.

I would have thought cupie doll.

He must think we fell off the turnip truck just yesterday.