It’s been a while since posted the crazy, nasty, and off-the-wall comments that people have tried to make on this site. That’s not because there haven’t been any, for with the increased readership the benighted come over more often than before. It’s just that I’ve had other priorities. But now, with a short break, let me present some of the comments that didn’t quite make prime time on the site.
On religion:
Reader Isaac comments on “‘What have you done lately?’: Dawkins talks to God.“:
God exist weather you want him to or not and Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we could be forgiven.
Weather?
*****
Reader Sha comments on “Afghan woman beaten to death for burning the Qur’an didn’t even do it.”
“No, we should descrate the book by all means: to show that it’s just a book, to show that its words are hateful and inspire others to hatred, and to show that burning a book is an incredibly trivial “offense” compared to killing someone for supposedly doing the same thing.”
If you have read the Quran, it’s not filled with hatred at all. If you haven’t read it, please don’t comment on it in such a harsh way.
I am SICK with everything that’s happening, and I’m ashamed to call those people a part of the same religion as me. But trust me, the life I lead based on my religion is so different than theirs.
Good for you, Sha. But I have read the Qur’an, and it’s certainly filled with hatred. Could you be reading a different Qur’an?
*****
Reader “Francis assnte” commented on my post about the charlatan, money-extorting preacher Creflo Dollar, “Minister Creflo Dollar asked parishioners to buy him a $65 million dollar jet for Jesus“:
The man is not a notorious. He’s indeed a man of God. There’s nothing wrong with him asking for help to buy a new jet. His plane is old & almost killed him & his family on 2 occasions. Stop tarnishing his image. Do you want him & family dead in a plane crash?
No, I just want him to fly coach, like Jesus would.
*****
Here’s a tired old canard. Reader “Anonymous” comments on “Russell Brand vs. Stephen Fry on the existence of God“:
I believe it’s truly sad that atheism is being confused with science and education. It takes just as much faith to be atheist than it does to be a theist. Scientific evidence has disproved certain religious dogmas sure, but just because some people who believe in 7 day creation also believe in God does not make the belief of God illogical.
Yes, it takes as much “faith” to be an atheist as it does to deny that Santa Claus is real.
*****
Reader “sjsnr” provides a classic example of begging the question (and remember, that means assuming what you want to prove. His/her post on “A writer for CNN debates whether Judas is in hell“, which is missing a semicolon in the final sentence:
Nobody knows if any person that has passed out of this life is saved but our Father in heaven.
There are more useful things to spend your time on than conjecture go out and spread the word about salvation.
*****
On evolution:
Reader Jon attempted to post on “The first U.S. penny touts science, not God“:
Does science have proof of creation? Not just a theory…proof? Evolutionists seem to have an irrational fear and hatred of God. Why is that? Why are you so afraid of us simple-minded deists and religious folk?
*****
Reader Mike tries to debunk evolution in my post “Flood geology“:
Why Evolution is not true – True, there are some people who don’t believe in God. But to me the problems of unbelief in God are greater than the problems of belief. To believe that unaided dead matter produced life, that living matter produced mind, that mind produced conscience, and that the chaos of chance produced the cosmos of order as we see it in nature, seems to call not for faith but for credulity. The president of the New York Scientific Society once gave ten reasons why he believed there was a God. The first was this: Take ten identical coins and mark them one to ten. Place them in your pocket. Now take one out. There is one chance in ten that you will get number one. Now replace it, and the chances that number two will follow number one are not one in ten, but one in one hundred. With each new coin taken out, the risk will be multiplied by ten, so that the chance of all ten following in sequence is one chance in 10,000,000,000 (ten billion). It seemed so unbelievable to me that I immediately took a pencil and paper and very quickly discovered he was right. Try it yourself. That is why George Gallup, the American statistician, says: “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone – the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”- Robert Laidlaw
Umm. . . Mike, you don’t really understand how natural selection constructs adaptations.
*****
Reader Tom Harvey proves that evolution is a lie in his comment on “Adam Gopnik: Why we should quiz politicians about their views of evolution“:
Clearly no science here. Check the laws of science which Darwinian evolution must break if it is in truth “a fact”. The science will show that it is not ” a fact” but a fairy tale. Only the facts, please.
*****
The most odious class—those who tell me what to write about:
Reader Mike Scott on a Hili Dialogue:
I’m getting fed up with your cat !
Dear Mike Scott, What on earth makes you think I’d care how you feel about cats? There are plenty of non-catty websites around, and I implore you to visit those rather than mine.
*****
Reader Andrew defends the TSA when commenting on my post, “TSA Blues.” I would have posted this had he left out the last sentence:
Sir, I read your book and it was great but would you rather fly without security at all. You could always just fly f’ it airlines. In other words if the person checking you just let you go and didn’t check you he’d have to do the same for everyone. When it comes to flying security in particular everyone is equal. Security can’t play favorites. It’d be great but unfortunately he was just doing his job. Yeah there’s some goofballs that work anywhere but it’s not fair to stereotype. The machine alarmed on you he just checked you. I’m sure he used the back of his hand if he did have to pat you down. Violated is a bit extreme to describe the process. Stick to topics of evolution please and I’ll remain a fan.
By the way, Andrew, he did NOT use the back of his hand.
*****
Reader Nick has some scorching remarks on my post, “A hilarious mimetic parrot (and lagniappe)“:
You wrote a blog post (yes, this is a blog despite how often you insist it isn’t) about how much you hate it when younger people use amazing (or awesome, I can’t remember) as a means for hyperbole. Yet here you are, using “hilarious” to describe something that isn’t funny. Seriously, just stick to the science writing. I don’t know how many more years you have to post inane bullshit to realize it’s inane bullshit. We live in an age of information overload, I didn’t come to a website run by an evolutionary biologist to read about stuff that could be found on a default sub of Reddit during the mid 2000’s. We already have plenty of blogs run by misguided children for that kind of stuff.
Fair enough, Nick. So go read those other “blogs”, not this website. I swear, the veil of pseudonymity turns some people into complete jerks. Besides, I find it amazing that a bird has the cognitive and vocal abilities to mimic a human’s telephone conversation. If you don’t find that fascinating, you’ve lost your sense of wonder.
Sub
I read an article yesterday on CNN Business, that stated that passengers annually leave more than $650,000 of change behind at the TSA checkpoints (that’s what TSA reports anyway). The TSA keeps the money if no one claims it. They also auction off all the items they confiscate. Perhaps they should be required to donate this money to a charity. A good charity would be Our Lady of the Fondled Masses.
I think that last word is an “m” too long …
/@
ROTFL!
“A good charity would be Our Lady of the Fondled Masses.”
Well, that leaves Creflo $$$ out then.
But maybe the word Lady is a “y” too long, which would leave Jerry in.
Dear Mike Scott, the scroll wheel is your friend, learn how to use it. Good gracious, do you realize it took your more effort to complain about the Hili dialogues than it would’ve taken just to scroll past it?
“It takes just as much faith to be atheist than it does to be a theist.”
This is certainly in the top three of most annoying arguments from apologists.
Me too. It’s a particularly annoying one. Right up there with “Atheism is a religion”.
Especially since it’s meaningless. Or at least I don’t know what it means. How does it take faith NOT to believe in something?
It is certainly frustrating. I think many who say it are unknowingly projecting how they value social conformity. They may think its unseemly to even consider breaking away from how they were raised, how most people around them act, etc. and assume it takes “faith” to be able to do that. From a position riddled with presuppositions it can be hard to see even an analytical truth.
It sounds like a clumsy attempt to find common ground, while simultaneously demonstrating superior humility.
Please don’t confuse me with that other Nick.
I will not
I’m constantly amazed by the number of people on this planet who think it’s their right to tell others what to do in their private lives, and even what to think. They’ll walk up to a stranger (or email him, or comment on his website) with complete confidence that they’re right, that they have the right, and even that they’re Doing Good Work.
They have no interest in an exchange of views, or discovering new information, just forcing their opinion on others. Eff ’em, I say, which are not words I’d use if I cared a jot for what they have to say.
I do enjoy reading Jerry’s posts about them though. Most entertaining. So I suppose their attitude has proven to be of some use. 🙂
re ALL of your points:
Hear! Hear!
Blue
Have you noticed how much humility the religious often show when they’re Doing Good Work? As Hitchens said: “Don’t mind me, I’m on an errand for God! How modest is that?”
EvolvedDutchie, that Hitch quote; do you think he might have been paying homage to the Blues Brothers?
I have no idea to be honest. Good thinking though! I love Aretha Franklin’s reaction when Elwood says they’re on a mission from God.
Though my favorite (though perhaps unfortunately given police actions of late; and I plead that I liked it pre-Ferguson/etc.) is the dispatcher saying “Use of excessive force against the Blues Brothers has been approved.”
My favourite is that monumental pileup of police cars. A joy to watch. (Satisfies all my subversive iconoclastic instincts, watching this gratuitous destruction of official property).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMagP52BWG8
Christopher and Richard. Richard and Christopher. …
/@
It appears that the writers are exhibiting a certain form of insanity, characterized by a penchant for taking personally what is intended to be impersonal . . . one of the reasons why religious belief is so scary.
Please may I offer my own answer to your correspondent’s question: “Why are you so afraid of us simple-minded deists and religious folk?” ?
Because some of you have also contrived to qualify as brain surgeons and rocket scientists. And that’s scary!
Another answer is, “because a lot of you push for repressive legislation, show hatred to anyone who differs from you, are trying to destroy American science education, and carry around enough guns for a middling-sized army.”
Yes; I was going to write something about the sizable intersection of “religious nut” and “gun nut” earlier but got distracted.
A second hand anecdote… some relatives of one of my friends are deeply, Pentacostally, religious. So much so that when they are driving around a sharp bend they exclaim “Oh Lord help me get round this bend!”
How scary is that?
Their driving is _that_ bad?
I heard a good anecdote today, of an engineer with the Ministry of Works in Gisborne in the 70’s who was not the brightest candle on the chandelier and who drove a Bradford van, a notably underpowered device, extremely slowly. One time he arrived at the end of the twisting hill road from Opotiki at the head of a queue of 30+ cars, one of which happened to be driven by one of his staff who vowed revenge. So next time this gentleman set off on the major excursion to Auckland, as he approached the start of the hills he saw a large official sign which said “Road Closed to Jowetts and Bradfords” and – he turned around and went home. (My informant swears this is true).
Well, it isn’t quite as alarming, but I had a colleague at CMU who was a RC priest from Africa (I’m wanting to say Nigeria, but I’ve forgotten now). We had an automatic stapler in the lab where we were working, and every time he bumped it wrong while using it and hence got two or three staples rather than one, he would say something like “The machine gave me two when I asked for one! I feel blessed!” I was too polite to find out if he was kidding.
O.K. I may be a bad WEIT reader, because I normally skipping the “Readers’ Beefs” posts, but I usually do. This one I just happened to have read and it had a very bad “fine-tuning” argument. It’s one I have heard given from people as diverse as engineers and ditch diggers (not that either one of those endeavors are more or less important, just different skill sets). So, here’s what it said and I’ll respond with why it’s really wrong:
…”one chance in 10,000,000,000 (ten billion)”
The commentator’s math is probably correct (I didn’t check it, but it’s at least close enough for this discussion). But, that same 1/10,000,000,000 would apply to ANY sequential numbering of 10 numbered coins; odds of 2,4,6,8,1,3,5,7,9,10? Exactly the same. It’s only our own personal feeling of “specialness” that gives it any significance. As an example; the odds of drawing a royal flush in poker are exactly the same as the odds of drawing any other 5 random cards. The difference is we have assigned a value to the royal flush. If we had assigned the same value to the 2C, 6S, 9H, QD, & 4H; Then that would be the best hand in the deck. The odds of getting dealt either hand are the same. The only reason the “fine-tuning” argument is even remotely persuasive is our own human arrogance. Somebody explain to me why arrogance was fined-tuned for?
Math nerd alert!
Because there are four royal flushes in the deck and only one hand as you describe, your hand is only 1/4 as likely as a royal flush.
(Ducking head as wads of paper are thrown at me.)
The flaw in the argument of course is that if the coins are all identical you can’t know which is 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 until you pull them out; then the first you pull out becomes 1, the second is 2, the third is 3 and so on through ten is 10.
BTW there doesn’t appear to be a New York Scientific Society – at least my search engines can’t find one. But then itr’s probably just another dishonest religious urban myth to checkmate atheists. More lyin’ for jebus!
If I understand that commenter correctly, he’s actually making what amounts to the “tornado assembling a 747 in a junkyard” argument. He’s trying to say evolution producing a human being is like drawing, on the first try and from random numbers, a previously established sequence.
The refutation of this is that natural selection is not a random process at all. It builds upon the success of previous iterations and can eliminate less successful iterations.
Right. The tornado analogy is one of my favorite myths to snipe at. A realistic tornado & junkyard situation that simulated evolution would be billions of tornadoes in billions of junkyards, and the first goal was to snaggle some junk together that could sort of have lift. Then make a million copies of that thing, and select for one that had slightly better lift, and so on.
Another aspect is that they will require it to assemble a 747. This too is simply wrong. The only requirement, over the long run, would be to assemble any flying machine of any kind.
“Another aspect is that they will require it to assemble a 747. This too is simply wrong. The only requirement, over the long run, would be to assemble any flying machine of any kind.”
Yep. Evolution doesn’t do teleology.
Yep. Evolution doesn’t do teleology. And, creationists, no matter what ridiculous argument du jour they are parroting, do not understand natural selection.
Agreed: even if the chance of getting a 1 first draw were 1 in 10, the chance of getting a 10 in the second draw are not 1 in 100, they’re still 1 in 10 (10 numbers, 1 draw), usW (for the German linguists), etc. (for all others).
For any given sequence, it’s 1 in x to the nth, where x is the number of options and n is the number of draws – PROVIDED that you start before any draw (and return the token to the pool between draws) – but the odds are the same for any sequence, whether it be ***whatever it is*** or 1234567980.
It’s the good old Texas sharpshooter fallacy rearing its ugly head again.
Yes, all sequences have equal likelihood. Jerry points out the failure to grasp natural selection, which is not random, but there’s an additional problem. It assumes even if life were random that things as they are now is the only combination that would support life. Using the 1 in 10 billion odds as an example, how do we know that say 8 billion of the sequences aren’t good for supporting life? Why is it just one? This is a valid criticism of fine tuning as well. We can’t claim to know that life couldn’t have arisen in a myriad of other ways.
I think Dawkins answered that in one of his books. “However many ways there are of being alive, there are infinitely more ways of being dead” (paraphrasing from memory).
So JJH’s argument that we are (incorrectly) regarding our random assortment of characteristics as special whereas almost any assortment would suffice, is fallacious. Any assortment would not suffice.
Of course (as Dawkins points out) this is where natural selection comes in. The less advantageous characteristics get selected out.
This is clearly a request for my Cyrus pictures! #teamd*g #lovehilitoo
And more pictures of Deets, such a beautiful pup. Since recently becoming a d*g owner, I have realised that “puppy” is the loveliest word in the English language.
I also have two cats.
Ah, lucky you, Marella!
That sentence just cracked me up for some reason. What did that cat do that so fed up this person? There is just something absurd in wanting to share that opinion – it makes me wonder if Mike has been plagued by nightmares about Hili watching him through his window, asking to be let in.
Well, you know, cats – the way they walk around like they own the place, demanding noms, fusses and the like.
It’s about time someone spoke up and represented those who’ve had enough! A membership whose number must surely reach into the single digits.
I woke up crunched into a corner of my bed last night due to a cat working his way to the middle! I was fed up enough that I.. touched him during a period of time in which touching was not allowed and he left in a huff after scolding me.
Mrahrrr🐾🐾🐾🐾
This morning I suddenly realized that we’ve all gotten it wrong! This was just a horrible misunderstanding. Prof. Coyne has a few d*gs among his readership, surely? And d*gs are well known to become over-enthusiastic in anticipation of favorite activities, and occasionally miss out punctuation in their exuberance. “Mike Scott” (a d*g’s name if ever there was one) simply couldn’t contain his excitement over the best part of his day, noms and Hili Dialogue:
As always, I find the information presented by yourself to be Awesome, Amazing and sometimes Hilli-rious…
Cheers,
M.
Re Minister Creflo
He could buy a lot of first class tickets for 28 million clams.
He could also have 270,000,000 kids dewormed or provide 30,000,000 people with clean water for a year (1 in 7 world wide don’t have access). I think he should get the jet though, it seems like a nobler cause. Doing God’s work safely… because safety should always come first… and He probably won’t save you… unless it’s on accident. Or after you’re dead.
Putting it that way really demonstrates what Creflo is all about. And that would, of course, be Creflo.
Or dollar
Ab$olutely.
Re Creflo Dollar,
He already has *several* private jets. He just wants the *best* corporate jet that money can buy – private bathroom, can fly at 50,000 feet, well over storms, etc.
Yes, if you have to auger in, why not go first class.
That’s kind of misleading since they always stop there and never finish the thought.
…so that we could be forgiven, except for being an atheist.
…so that we could be forgiven, except for blasphemy.
…so that we could be forgiven, except for not being the same religion.
…so that we could be forgiven, except for ummm just about anything.
“You COULD be forgiven if you do exactly as I say, most especially give me money”.
Why is a need for forgiveness never questioned? This is such a basic tenet of Christianity. Swallowed so completely, people don’t even think of questioning it.
That is the primary reason that christians think atheists are arrogant. Because we (atheists) think it is silly that humans need a Jesus to forgive them. They don’t understand the fallacy there because they are so committed to the belief that humans need to be saved they can’t see past that. It is the very core of christianity, after all.
Even modern liberal christians share this blinding fixation. Though it is slightly morphed into a personal yearning that is all about wanting to better oneself.
It is good that you share some of these with us all. No reason you should be the only one confused and laughing at the same time. I wonder if there is a way to have a minimum age requirement?
However the one with the cat remarks…gotta go.
Yeah: that cat – hater ?
Abra – CA – Tabra: .G O N E.
per m’whimsical witchery —
Blue
But of course many young people make far more sense than these nuts.
But Jerry, have you read the Qur’an in Arabic? That is the magic stone which turns dross into gold!
Not just any old arabic though, has to be classic 7th century Arabic with all the words no-one understands anymore.
I actually bought a copy of the Qu’ran years ago and tried reading it (in English of course). Never mind hateful, I was just bored rigid by the experience and never got near finishing it. Then again, the bible’s not much better.
I’ll just stick with WEIT, though that’s pretty hard in some places too!
“Good for you, Sha. But I have read the Qur’an, and it’s certainly filled with hatred. Could you be reading a different Qur’an?”
She’s been reading the Woman’s Qur’an. The print actually runs to the back of the sheet.
What to think of the makeup of the supposedly holy book? Caliph Uthman ibn Affan must be the worst and laziest editor in history. He simply put the longest chapter at the beginning and the shortest at the end. Not even the Bible is that bad.
Ahem. The Hili dialogues are the best thing on here. I look forward to them.
the office cat, Svetlana, insists on reading Hili first thing every morning.
The TSA comment is typical right-wing rhetoric. If you are against being physically violated, you must want there to be no security at all! There is nothing in between.
The Canadian government right now is trying to pass a nasty bill that provides sweeping powers to our spy agencies. When Canadians oppose this, Conservatives reply, “are you fundamentally opposed to protecting Canadians from terrorists?”
“The country that will trade a little liberty for a little security will lose both, and deserve neither.”
thank you Mr. Franklin, now back that $100 bill where you belong (in Creflo’s wallet, set to purchase another private jet I suppose)
…classic example of begging the question (and remember, that means assuming what you want to prove).
Thanks for reminding people of this, but unfortunately, it seems that more people now think that “…which begs the question…” means “…which raises the question…”. I’ve given up trying convince people otherwise; the battle is lost.
That’s odd (and probably geographical); though I don’t hear it much, when I do hear (or use) the phrase, it always means to assume what one is trying to prove.
This guy seems to see/hear the misuded phrase a lot. In my experience, it used in the formally incorrect way far more often than not.
I am amazed anew at the liberties people take with someone who puts a lot of time and work into this site. It is my belief that social media has given people the very false impression that their every thought and opinion is not only significant, but authoritative. Who would walk into a retail store and say, ‘You need to stop carrying these wind chimes, they’re stupid and I don’t want to waste my time looking at wind chimes’? No one, because a person who doesn’t care about wind chimes would just pass them by.
People certainly do tend to think their every thought is significant and authoritative, but I’d bet that’s been the case since long before the social media. Like, millennia.
Pardon my superfluous definitive article.
Pardon my use of “definitive” instead “definite”.
Christ. Maybe I’ve had enough wine.
Missing “of”.
Definitely gotta stop drinking now.
Or water?
/@
I’m thirsty, not dirty.
Ah, that’s where Jesus comes in …
/@
If you’re ever thirsty and dirty, at least your extremities, Jesus is still your guy.
I hear the disciples just loved their mani/pedis!
No reason not to let the buzz linger. In fact, I wish they’d invent a longer-lasting alcohol.
If you work out exactly how to tell when you have had enough wine I’d like to know
It’s tricky because 8pm me and 10pm me have conflicting ideas about the appropriate time to stop.
(Not really. (But kind of.) Point being don’t worry. I do have a 3 glass max.)
I suspect that’s only slightly less likely than the person who walks into the store and says, ‘You should carry wind chimes! People would shop here much more often if you had wind chimes we could look at. I rarely shop here because I have to go to [competitor] to see any wind chimes’.
Bah. Let them beef. I love this “blog” and all the amazing contributions. I’m not nuts about everything from time to time, so I skip the topics of little interest at the time…And that seldom happens. Dr. Coyne, it’s your baby (kitten?), and write what you see fit. I have no idea how you manage to keep it so fresh day after day, and I am very glad you do. Keep the cats coming, I love the moggies! Thank you!
I’ll bet there are some King Henry VIII sites on the net. Recommend they try over there where they might lose their heads.
It’s rather nauseating to know there are so many willfully and abominably ignorant and hateful people out there. I’m torn between feeling hopeful enlightenment ideals of reason and humanism will continue to spread and religious and other dogmatic nonsense will decline and dreading how much more damage they’ll cause, both in acts of terrorism and in destroying the environment that sustains us all.
Oh, and much thanks to Professor Ceiling Cat and Hili for burning one of those candles in the dark the dearly missed Carl Sagan wrote of all those years ago, bringing wisdom and humor to us and sharing the occasional well-justified outrage at stupid human tricks!
I was hoping for more comments on the math. The 1:100 figure seems wrong, because it considers two separate events. Taken together, 1:100 is correct, but the coin marked with the 2 does not avoid being drawn after 1.
In any case, the odds of humans evolving are 1:1, because it happened. If we find life on another planet, with no humans, we might be able to say that the odds are 1:2.
I welcome critique of my reasoning (but will run and hide from the Monty Hall problem).
That was my thought too. After drawing the 1, the probability for it goes to 1:1, and the probability for the 2 is still 1:10. I was wondering if the writer had made the error or if it originated with the “scientific society”.
Excuse my possible lameness, but after drawing a 1 out of 10 coins, I thought the probability of drawing a 2 would be 1:9. But probability of this sort always messes with me.
It depends on whether you put the first coin back.
Woops, saw this after I commented below. Prior to the first two draws, the odds of drawing 1 followed by 2 are 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100. However, if 1 has already been drawn, the odds of drawing 1 then 2 are now 1/1 * 1/10 = 1/10. And yes, the reader did specify replacement after each draw. Without replacement, the odds are 1/10! = 1/3628800.
Also, I don’t buy the part of the story that the President of a scientific society would need pen and paper to verify what 10 to the 10th power is…
On cats:
We’ve always had one, or more, though only one for the past few years – the latest, our Tabbysinian, Holly Golightly, loves our bed, especially when we are trying to sleep in it, and even more when it’s cold.
On the TSA:
I understand Prof CC’s frustrations: Salon’s “Ask the Pilot” described it as “security theater”; as in, “Why can’t I carry my pocket knife into the cockpit when I can fly the plane into the ground with no hijackers nearby?” Unfortunately, that is no longer fantasy, but the argument about the pocketknife still applies.
My experience over the past 10+ years has been chequered, but never really unpleasant; and I really do think that TSA is a LOT better than it was in its early days – I do not miss the yelling at the “sheep” in the clearance lines of days gone by.
My wife and I are both already fingerprinted (I as an immigrant and lawyer, she as a teacher), and the powers-that-be have had years to determine our risk factors), so …
On our last purely domestic flight, both of us were, for unknown reasons, TSA prechecked, no belts or shoes off, don’t take the computer out of its bag, and onto the plane;
so even though we make only a couple of flights (round-trips) a year, I am think we should pay the <$10 a flight to get one or other of the preclearance approvals (5 years for $100 or so).
All I can say is "apply for one or other of those programs" (I think I would go for the international one – Global Entry), and I hope it works out better for you. Best of luck.
So, Mike has demonstrated that a series of events with 10 billion possibilities means that each individual outcome has a 1 in 10 billion chance of occurring? This is amazing to some people?
Also, the odds of picking 2 after picking already picking 1 are not 1 in 100. They’re 1 in 10…
“No, I just want him to fly coach, like Jesus would.”
Quite literally laughed out loud at that (and not in the “literal” lol way the youth of today are always banging on about) that really perked up my shitty day, well, night.
Remember the good ol’ days when it was only the lonely old cranks that took the time to write a whinging head-up-arse complaint to the newspaper? Now, everyone has access to the complaint department any time, anywhere, and for any reason. Used to be belligerent old farts ranting about potholes and politics, now it’s crazy a$$holes going after cats. thanks, internet!
is it possible to find contact information to Mr. Fed-up-with-your-cat guy, so that Hili can post a turd to him?
I literally laughed at that line, too!
(I don’t share your experiences with LttE writers, though.)
And the subject of the whinging, head-up-arse complaint???? Too many cats!!
I wonder sometimes how these ninnies have the wherewithal to afford an ISP.
To be honest, except for the science posts, readers’ beefs are those I like most on WEIT.
Also, “No, I just want him to fly coach, like Jesus would” made my day.
Oh, this sample is amazeballs! They just don’t get it (so this will be repetitive):
“God exist weather you want him to or not”.
_Santa Claus_ exist whether you like it or not. But the interesting thing is if you can show that they are anything but myths.
Someone doesn’t get the concept of myth.
“If you have read the Quran, it’s not filled with hatred at all.”
I have browsed it, and wherever I looked it was filled with hatred against The Other, and attempts to immunize faith against asking such questions as if the myth express hate.
Perhaps worse, it was written in a childish attempt at brainwash, with 3 imaginary magic beings endlessly repeating the points with little variation. This is specious, but it hit me personally as an expression of functional hate against diversified opinion.
I certainly never felt any love anywhere in that myth (and I certainly wouldn’t choose it if I felt the slightly in need to believe in magic).
Someone doesn’t get the concept of hate.
“There’s nothing wrong with him asking for help to buy a new jet.”
Someone doesn’t get the concept of wrong.
“but just because some people who believe in 7 day creation also believe in God does not make the belief of God illogical.”
Smell test: ‘but just because some people who believe in smoking cigars also believe in smoking does not make the belief that smoking is harmless illogical.’
Someone doesn’t get the concept of logical.
“Does science have proof of creation? Not just a theory…proof?”
Theory is ‘proof’ (evidence), and we have a valid, robust theory of cosmology. Which has nothing to do with biology, by the way. [ http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ]
“To believe that unaided dead matter produced life”.
Something bacteria and plants do out of minerals and sometimes light all the time, without external guidance. (Except their own adaptation over generations, aka evolution.)
Someone doesn’t get the concept of biology.
That was a ‘catty’ remark to Mike Scott, don’t you think? Hilarious!
There’s enough stuff here in one post to spend WEEKS in my critical thinking class giving examples of fallacies! In discussing the existence of God, I’ve covered the exact misunderstanding that the reader promotes about evolution, and that Diane McPherson shows to be the black and white fallacy. And it could also be construed to be a really bad argument from analogy==no, the 10 coins in your pocket example is NOTHING like how evolution works.
Thanks to you all.
I was under the impression that Jeebus “flew” with an “assyrian” transport layer, and like all good saviours everywhere (but not, it seems, many pastors of Jeebus-loving churches) he took a seat at the back end of the “assyrian” transporter.
Not being an equine-experienced person, I don’t know the answer. But I suspect that watching globular preacher in a white suit (that’s traditional “down south” clothing, isn’t it?) trying to ride at the front end of an “assyrian” transport would be …
Where’s my popcorn?