John, hear me.What? Who said that?
It is I, God.
Oh come on. PZ, is that you? I'm not buying it.
It is I, God. Look, I'll prove it. [Clouds in the sky form the letters "Yep, It's Me" for a minute and then evaporate.]
Ummm, OK, for the sake of argument, let's say it is You, and I'm not hallucinating. What do You want?
Romney, you're no Jack Kennedy
These were my thoughts exactly as I watched/read his speech. Here is a more detailed analysis of the concpet from The Divine Afflatus.
LOLcat.
I've been ignrong this phenomenon. But have you looked it up in Wikipedia?
">
Science approach vs.Creationist approach
This is pretty much the way the arguments go on the discussion threads. If science can't explain everything from before the first atom, which by the way is all lumped in under "evolution": "How did water evolve, huh? Tell me that!" then obviously Goddidit!
Go check out the Creationist Rhetor-O-Matic.
New on.... Open Access and Science 2.0
Must read list of new stuff on, well, like it says.
Don't believe Rotten Tomatoes; The Golden Compass is good!
I have to wonder if whoever was put in charge of the Golden Compass reviews page on RottenTomatoes.com has something against the film; it's listed as receiving a 44% approval rating but some of the reviews seem more positive then negative when I actually read some of them. I don't need to ask a reviewer how it was though since I just got in from seeing it, and I have to say that it was very enjoyable.
Comments
Is that? No, it can't be. But maybe. Okay, here goes. Is that Schrodinger's cat?
Posted by: Sandra Porter | December 8, 2007 10:45 PM
Sandra: Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe neither yes nor no, maybe both yes and no. There is a finite number of possible answers to your question, but we cannot be creation which one pertains.
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 9, 2007 9:48 AM