On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:30:19 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <f8go829ophm023vjca9eka2sltdrl8m22s@4ax.com>

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:48:31 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:05:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <l07j821tj2l91enbss35v6g1q0e1lt7ql8@4ax.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:15:43 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:59:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <hkcc8254k9g0tpuqcqr4b4p1b5tlivgn6h@4ax.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:27:09 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:58:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <os3782ld5lldmnsgmkic2cneqf8sdgk8h7@4ax.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:31:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism

On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:08:34 GMT, "Sara Brum" <right@home.here> wrote:
- Refer: <SIVeg.437$ap3.314@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148976602.612320.83380@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Top scientist gives up on creationists
http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2006/story/0,,1785655,00.html

James Randerson, science correspondent
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Guardian


A leading British scientist said yesterday that he had given up trying
to persuade creationists that Darwin's theory is correct after
repeatedly being misrepresented and, he said, branded a liar.

Speaking at the Guardian Hay festival at Hay-on-Wye, the evolutionary
biologist Steve Jones spoke of his frustrations when trying to debate
with religious opponents.

It would seem he's finally learned the meaning of Heinlein's words:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time, and it annoys the
pig."

How apt!
I must remember that.
It would have come in handy as succinct advice for those currently
wrestling with Jack's startlingly limited intellectual repetoire.

(Never try to teach a Theist to think: it wastes your time, and it
annoys the poor creature.)

And thinking is outside their programming. They are Borg.

And, as such, they are so much like atheists. Or do you consider
yourself a better think than, say, Martin Buber or Thaddeus
Dobzhansky?

{sigh} The context was Jack's 'kind.' I'm well aware there are
multitudes of highly educated theists who can, and do, think.

Michael, however, talked about theists in general. He did not say
"never teach Jack to think", he said "a theist".

I understood 'Jack' to be implied which is why I responded the way I
did. If I misunderstood then I misundersood.

Thanks because I did and do expect better from you. You seem to
actually understand the questions, not just line up with your side as
all to many insist on doing.

When I screw up I admit it. If there's a possibility/probability I
misunderstood something I do my best to acknowledge it. I enjoy banter,
antics, hijinks, pun cascades, 'zingers', word and imagery manipulation
and play, and the various points of view on things. There's been a

This raises an interesting thought that I have been harbouring for
some time now, and that is: those who are able to generate puns, and
various types of subtle word play, must be able to view normal things
from multiple abnormal angles almost instantly, and I have found that
this correlates strongly with a flexible outlook, or philosophy.
And the reverse applies (generally): those who are quite set in their
ways, almost always cannot 'get' complex multi-meaning word-play.

Mind you, this is in no way a statistical survey, merely personal
observation over decades.