Thank you, India.
 

I appreciate it. Re lines are a lost art.

"She blinded me with science," or, "You say you want an evolution."
 

If the attraction between bodies were that simple, how come after sex your sister wants to cuddle and i just want to go watch TV?

"She blinded me with science," or, "You say you want an evolution."
 

One possible answer, and this is just a theory, is that the distance between your 2 bodies is very small - hence, very low gravitational pull . . .

Math is hard
 

Uh, inversely proportional.

I think it is likely that they are both just very very tiny people.

Math is hard
 

and neither knows how to cuddle on a couch in front of the tv.

"She blinded me with science," or, "You say you want an evolution."
 

Of course density plays a part, explaining your many light-bending posts.

All due Respect
 

Okay -- this makes sense. You wanted to tell people who say that creationism is purely based on faith that their own belief in evolution is also based on faith. There is some room for debate there -- I think the extent to which the basis is on faith differs, and I think that one is relying on the Bible or priests or whatever, while the other is relying on the consensus of the scientific community, and does so not just with regard to evolution but to a whole host of things.

But, I missed (or have forgetten) the original conversation, and in your more recent posts on this issue your tone is a bit... well, different. Basically, you sound like a scientist-bashing Christian rightist who firmly believes in creationism and the Noahnic flood and all that, and thinks anyone who doesn't is stupid. Perhaps that's not your intent, but it's the image you've begun to portray.

Math is hard
 

Physics is hard

Actually, it's the only way it worked with my obviously failed attempt at a small dick joke.

"She blinded me with science," or, "You say you want an evolution."
 

You have this backwards, but it's a common mistake. Remember, it's the inverse, not the perverse.

All due Respect
 

My tone comes from not having the energy to do the long post i just did for you (as a token of respect) for everyone who comes here and calls me dumb for taking the perceived position.

All due Respect
 

Great. Here comes the Rawls debate.

You'll never find....
 

I said it before, and I'll say it again -- there is no debate. Simply put, Lou Rawls kicks ass.

All due Respect
 

I was gone for just a little bit and look what happens. For the last time I am not Penske and my first post was yesterday. I am sorry but you are way off here.

1)You are correct that "natural selection" does not cause species to evolve. Natural phenomena favors certain mutations leading to change. No cause. It just happens.

2) There are people that think the earth is flat. There are people that think that the sun revolves around the earth. There are creationists. All of these people are really arguing from the same irrational position.

3) How did the first cell start? Are you kidding? In nature almost every step in this evolutionary chain still exist. Proteins to quasi- cells to simple cells to complex cells. The million to one shot was the lightning that struck the primoridial soup creating protein chains.

4) Single celled to mulitcelled - Again -are you kidding? Again in nature there is an example of every step of the way. From cooperating cells, to causally linked cells, to connected cells etc. There are strong theories on all these developments.

etft -- t.s.

The first three paragraphs of that entry were meant to be quoted. Sorry. I still have not learned the system very well yet.

Have you read Clarke's book?