EvilDon (270) 31 SFW Posts | 326 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2007-04-27 18:22:47 Comment Karma: 14 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from EvilDon

Comment on Superman Vs Spider-Man (2007-10-09 11:04:50)
Why are they fighting? They both like red, blue, women with four letters in their first name, and spandex.
Comment on The Gay Agenda (2007-10-09 11:01:16)
I think that the "Gay Pride" folks are Nazis (why else would they use the pink triangle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle ). And this cartoon explains their plot for world conquest.
Comment on Tony Jaa (2007-10-09 10:55:29)
**giggles** @ Caio. Although, I have no idea what you are talking about, I have a feeling I do not want to.
Comment on Creationist's Theory Wallpaper (2007-10-09 10:51:33)
"Perhaps, by a stretch, ok." Is what I said to your previous post. I was agreeing with calling these things research and evidence. Albeit, poor and basic. But all research must have a beginning. However, what I am interested in hearing is why an (numerically) improbable theory (abiogenesis) receives precedence over empirical data (life coming from life). I would think that a observed universal constant would receive precedence over a unproven theory. And you missed my point with the 'creating life' bit. Scientists engineer the (what may or may not have been "natural") circumstances of the formation of the first cell. If it is a simple matter of physics that life begins with the right circumstances, then does that not suggest that it could have been done in the past? See how that proves nothing? Here is also an interesting thought. If a cell could be made (by whatever means) in a lab, would this be a living cell, or a dead one? I honestly have very little to base a conclusion on. Comments (and references, if possible)on this would be very welcome. Even if it is, for the moment, 'mental masturbation'. Really and truly, I do not see how proving (scientifically) the beginnings of life is possible. That is my point.
Comment on kitty is sad because you're mean (2007-10-09 09:36:31)
If smelling catnip gives you superhuman speed, then, yes, you can use a cat as a silencer. Which will be useful in fighting off rednecks and anti-book protesters.
Comment on kitty is sad because you're mean (2007-10-09 08:05:00)
**secretly gives kitty food and pettings**
Comment on Creationist's Theory Wallpaper (2007-10-09 07:58:06)
"Mentally masturbate" teeheehee. This is my amusing point. Miller created some crude biomatter devoid of DNA or RNA and especially, life (but it was teeming with tar, a chemical inimical to life) . And I do not see how fossilized bubbles (coacervates) argue abiogenesis at all. To illustrate all of this, growing a tree in a lab is quite different then growing a house in a lab. So, because one can grow a small component of a much more vastly complex thing means actual research and convincing evidence? Perhaps, by a stretch, ok. Then by a similar stretch one can observe that, according to empirical data, life only comes from life, and call the research and thus, science. Besides, if scientists did create life in a lab, all it would prove is ID. Here we are, back to 'mentally masturbating' again. Physics has math to back it up. Granted that is not physical proof. But who does anything without doing a little math first?
Comment on United States Military Bases (2007-10-08 17:57:11)
You have a country benny? COOL! What is your title? Evil Overlord? Supreme Ruler and Dictator for Life? Can I be a Governor and have my own castle?
Comment on Shut Up Hippy (2007-10-08 17:01:55)
**Invites Cargen to put a flower in His gun**
Comment on Creationist's Theory Wallpaper (2007-10-08 16:52:47)
"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[10][11] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment," ID being " not science because they cannot be tested by experiment" means that abiogenesis is just as unscientific, because it can not prove that life comes from non-life. Neither can be demonstrated and neither has been observed. Thus, one is as unscientific as the other and are really only philosophies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method
Comment on Shut Up Hippy (2007-10-08 16:01:38)
Hippies FTL!
Comment on Creationist's Theory Wallpaper (2007-10-08 15:51:58)
And as long as I am on the subject, I will clarify another misconception. "Creationism" is the belief that the universe was created in six days. This being a literal interpretation of the biblical account in Genesis. www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html www.answers.com/topic/creationism "Intelligent Design" is, the belief that the universe was created by someone(s), sometime... and has a bit more variety as to it's details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Comment on Creationist's Theory Wallpaper (2007-10-08 15:35:23)
...This was a common Hindu belief. Another common Hindu belief is that the world was not really "created"*, seeing as how their gods came about after the beginning of...whatever (see Hindu "The Song of Creation"). There are myths that a golden egg split, making the heaven and earth, but even in ancient times that was rarely taken seriously. Oh and btw, the turtle was sometimes in a "cosmic sea". So, this must all be an evolutionary imperative. The turtle and elephants must have evolved to hold the earth in place. Otherwise, obviously, the earth would fall. *There is not a creator in Hindu myth. If there is no "Creator", there can not technically be a "creation"
Comment on NSFW - Sexy Poppins (2007-10-05 08:21:51)
It is just a stool. In the movie they walk and dance and what not on clouds, taking the form of various things such as stairs. I tried to find a video of it on youtube, but I could not.
Comment on Poop Bucket Through Window (2007-10-04 10:19:13)
I do not miss my poop, nor do I want it back. Btw, in Stuttgart, this will get you castrated and put in to stocks.