tvashtarkatena

I would. Come on down to Ptown bro! That's in the works, and I expect you PTown bitches to rope gun for me.

Your question is so easy, it's almost rhetorical. The question is, if we watched him get buried up to his chin in an avalanche, without anybody else around (except the reader of course) in subzero temperatures, in a very remote area, with 15 minutes of daylight left, would we dig him out? Now that's a legitimate question. To make it trickier, lets assume you have knowledge only of his character and not the fact that he has enough banked calories and natural insulation to keep him warm for several days. If I got buried only up to my chin, and you didn't dig me out, I'd make sure you heard about it.

must one swallow a theodiciac first? or is that theodisiac? Theodicist. My partners never fail to exercise their free will in this regard.

Weren't we all born virgins? Just sayin'....

they just want you for your body. Counterweight. It's a job I can do.

Someone must tell you lest you persist unaware: You are a GENUINE EMBARRASSMENT. Anyone want to go climbing with this Tvashtarkatena guy??? Got two different partners lined up for the weekend. How bout you, Krusty?

Grab a camera. The blood eating finch finally got something right.

You are so much driveway gravel, but I will still remind you that this is VH's religion that dictates this, not mine. You are going to Hell, Mongoloid. If you don't like it, you must take this up with VH's God.

Once again, sense, we arrive at the Universe's sole, inviolable Truth: I'm right and therefore you must be wrong. See? No rambling. I wish I could have a martini, but my new ice climbing religion forbids it. "thou shalt work thine vicegripper device until exhaustion, which no other gripping action shall intrude upon." use a straw. Call me Sensei though, and as such, i must tell you your attempts at deductive reasoning parallel those of the esteemed seahawks (since we know that I am right, and you are again wrong, as always). No, Sense is the correct title for such a Master of the Huka. It is true that my postings are wasted on The Mongoloid, who was born without a cerebral cortex, but then, every cat needs his mouse.

Yes, easy. Suspiciously easy. According to VH: Anyone with a spec of sin does not go to heaven, because God requires perfection prior to admission into same. That includes gays (who continue to be gay). I would imagine, for that reason, that Hell is more tastefully decorated than Heaven, with its trailer butterflies, inspiration 'golf theme' posters, and lawn deer. You don't get in, Seahawks, by your own admission. Sorry buddy. Guess I'll be seeing you in Hell.

Once again, sense, we arrive at the Universe's sole, inviolable Truth: I'm right and therefore you must be wrong. See? No rambling. I wish I could have a martini, but my new ice climbing religion forbids it.

Damn! I've been found out! Proof Positive: The Denier caught in the act of hating God for creating me and the world as it is (black hood worn for emphasis)

What about boy scout climb instruction, or was that just spray?

Can't hate what you don't believe in, amigo. Sorry to dissappoint. Last sentence: "For an atheist, the answer here is self-evident" Hey, you're right for once! Dumbass.

Well, here's where your germane argument becomes extinct. VH and his brand of Biblical literalists DON'T believe in a compassionate or caring God. Their God fucks over all of humanity over all time because the the mistake of one couple, sends perfectly good humans to the firey lake because of one little sin, and doesn't give two shits about how you treat other people as long as you kiss His all powerful ass, even after a life full of fucking others over. "Oh, hey, I'm sorry about all that, Lord. Your my one, true Savior now". Their God is, as I've already stated, a complete and utter narcissistic, sadistic asshole. So your baby was born without a brain? Blame Adam and Eve, bitch! Your whole city just got nuked? Blame Adam and Eve, bitch! You've got worms crawling out of your ass? BAAEB! Don't blame your Loving God, just because He made up all these fucked up rules that were destined to be broken right away and the draconian consequences that come with most minor infraction! Don't blame a God that requires only PERFECTION (nothing fucked up about that, no, nothing at all). Of course, this fucked up religion's followers play the same 'blame somebody else' game. "Hey, I'm not discriminated against gays. Some of my best friends are 'struggling' with being gay. I'm not against science, but I'm not allowed to believe in it. I'm not against the Constitution, but I'm required to do everything I can to violate it. I respect you, but I'm required to impose my beliefs on you, because they're the only ones that are right. Got a problem with that? Blame God." Yeah, OK. You could choose to subscribe to a more mellow form of Christianity; there are plenty of sects out there that don't discriminate against gays, and you can still get to Heaven without being a complete asshole...but you chose this one, fella. So who's the asshole? God? For an atheist, the answer here is self evident.

His actual quote, please? Not taken out of context this time. Scharwz, given his work, obviously subscribes to the theory of evolution, so I'm not really sure what your point is here. His statement in no way refutes the theory. Furthermore if, in fact, he did make this claim, he was obviously not aware of the anolis and other research, and therefore was in error. Scientists dissagreeing? Happens all the time. Evolution: The Debate Evolutionist "Mutations happen" Creationist "Yeah, so what?" Evolutionist "A bird born with a longer beak might be able to get more nector, survive better, and have chicks with longer beaks, too." Creationist "Yawn. So what?" Evolutionist "After many generations, the beaks of these birds might get so long that they can't mate with other birds that have shorter beaks because their beaks would get in the way". Creationist "Makes sense. Big deal." Evolutionist "The birds with longer beaks would constitute, by definition, a new species" Creationist "NO FUCKING WAY! EVOLUTION IS A HOAX!"

Again, not true, and without a citation and link, I seriously doubt that Schwarz, who specializes in the evolution of humans and apes, ever made this claim. Evolution of new species of anolis lizards in the Caribbean has been directly observed over the past several decades as these lizards spread northward through the island chain. Just one of many examples. Look it up.

Dude...get real. There was very little fun here...this "conversation" hits a new low for cc.com...and that's saying something. Dude...you're speaking for yourself. Reread the first ugly responses and then some....bitterness towards you and your faith was expressed abundantly, to the very end. The moderators should have kept your announcement in the "Climbing Partners" forum and locked it or halted the responses when it got ugly. Your perfectly legitimate original post didn't deserve what it got. I suggest that you be very selective. Not everyone is safe nor fun. Shalom and good luck! Well, that's one man's opinion. The rest of us seem to think that this is a pretty good thread. Oh, I forgot...STFU, Raindawg!

That's a very good question, but making up something all powerful, calling it God, and claiming you've answered it seems like cheating on the test, don't you think? I prefer the "we don't know yet, and we might never know, but we're trying to find out" answer. Just a little more honest. And BTW, how do you know there was nothing before there was something? Seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me. So making something up like evolution and shaking in a few million years to create life is better?? Come on, it just as much if not more of a farce. The more honest answer is that something can't come from nothing. Well, Darwin didn't just make up the theory of evolution. He discovered a bunch of new birds in the Galapagos that seemed to fill every evolutionary nitch: seed eaters, insect eaters, even blood eaters. Strangely, they all turned out to be various species of finches. This observation, or 'fact', led to a question: how is it that there can be so many forms of the same type of bird, each ideally suited for its environment? To answer this question, Darwin came up with a very simple but powerful idea: 1) Random mutations occur over time. Most, but not all, mutations are harmful to the organism. Even the Biblical literalists don't dispute this observable fact. 2) Beneficial mutations that help the organism survive better will, well, help the organism survive better, so that mutation is more likely to be passed on. This is 'natural selection'. 3) Over time, lots of little mutations can eventually lead to substantial changes in the organism. On ancestral species of finch eventually winds up being several species with with nutcracking beaks, insect eating beaks, and blood sucking beaks. Over longer periods of time, when more mutations are involved, dinosaurs can become birds, amphibians can become reptiles, etc. It's a common misconception that evolution cannot be observed in a lab. In fact, it's observed all the time. Virus's mutate and evolve into drug resistant strains very quickly, in a matter of days and weeks, as any AIDS researcher can tell you. The non-drug resistant strain is killed by the drug, the drug resistant strain populates to take it's place. Classic natural selection/evolution at work. Anti viral drug research would not even be possible without taking into account the tendency for viruses to evolve quickly into drug resistant strains.

That's a very good question, but making up something all powerful, calling it God, and claiming you've answered it seems like cheating on the test, don't you think? I prefer the "we don't know yet, and we might never know, but we're trying to find out" answer. Just a little more honest. And BTW, how do you know there was nothing before there was something? Seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me.

The $250K is a rhetorical gimmick that means nothing. All you'd have to do to deny the prize to anyone forever would be to include the term "proven without any doubt". No scientific theory has been or will ever be "proven without any doubt". Theories are forever subject to testing and re-testing...as any honest, open idea should be. For the fourth time, just in case the Mongoloid actually has the capacity to learn: Facts are small things. "I've got a fossil in my hand". That's a fact. What that fact means with regards to a theory is what's important. Does it refute it? Support it? Theories are the big thing; the biggEST thing in science. That's all science is; theories tested by factual evidence. There is nothing absolutely certain about theories, and that's a good thing, because that's what has produced the amazing expansion of human knowledge. The most common thing I hear from creationists is that Evolution is a theory, not a fact. That's like pointing to Mt. Everest and exclaiming "That's a mountain, not a mole hill!". Um...OK. Needless to say, this never fails to make the pronouncer appear ignorant to anyone with a laymen's command of the English language. I think some training on the definitions of 'theory' verses 'fact' amongst Biblical literalists could only help their hapless cause of trying to turn back the tide of 10,000 years of scientific progress, but hey, that's a rationalist speaking. Enter the Biblical literalists: "Stop with all this science crap (crud?)! We've got all the answers right here, see? A, B, C. 4,000 years. 7 days. Adam and Eve. OK, let's hit the rummage sale". No thanks.

Sequim being a retirement mecca, we have a LOT of elderly drivers on the road that don't seem confident about maneuvering around a cyclist. More often than not, they opt to slow down and "lurk" behind me for what seems like miles on end unless I wave them around or just pull over to let them by. Makes me nervous while they are behind me like that. By comparison, I've noticed that when I bike around Bainbridge Island, the cars usually whiz right by at full speed and get the passing overwith like it's no big deal. Even though they are passing at a higher speed and closer to me(many of those roads are shoulderless), it feels safer because I can tell they are taking control and driving decisively. I love you Sherri! Just thought I'd add some randomness here.

Poe Tree!

Bug, quit being such an apologist, at least for me. Apologize for yourself if you feel the need, but not for the rest of us. And quit asking a married woman out, even though her supple lips gently unfold like gentian pedals to kiss the dawn of summer's last morning.

He's also way cooler, smarter, funnier, and better looking. Would you guys stop with the human tail and exploded babies photos already? Talk about a conversation killer. These kinds of birth defects don't even speak to the subject. A cave dwelling fish with vestigial, non-functioning eyes would provide a better, more palatable bit of evidence against intelligent design. The best example I've seen is the bacterial flagellum, which used to be the flagship argument FOR intelligent design because it constituted a perfect little biomechanical rotary motor that wouldn't work if any piece was missing. Well, this sounded fine, until the bacteria that causes plague was examined. It has the exact design, with pieces missing. Surprise! It's a stationary injection needle, not a rotary propeller. Examples of this kind of progressive evolution of related features which serve a wide variety of functions (or sometimes none at all, like our own appendix and, for some, their cerebral cortex), abound in nature. A mating feature becomes a heat fin becomes a wing. It's funny that some Christians need to think of God and the world in simple terms a 3 year old would be comfortable with. On the fourth day God opened a big box and all the horsies walked out, fresh from the God factory, and all that. How boring and stupid...in other words, how human. Now a God that creates evolution, a few simple rules that turn the tide of the 2nd law of thermodynamics by eating energy and spitting out ever greater creations of intricacy, interdependence, and uniqueness from just a handful of simple atoms...that's the deepest kind of beauty. If you believe in God, which universe would you prefer to believe in: The 3 year old's Paint By Numbers universe of the Biblical literalists or the evolving universe of Cro Magnon cave paintings, Michealangelo, and Magritte where there are an infinity of mysteries yet to be discoverd? If, in fact, I'm just God's hamster, I'd choose the larger, more interesting cage. After all, no matter what you believe, at some point, you choose to believe it because it somehow suits you. Belief is always a choice.