| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"neo" |
| Date: |
24 Oct 2006 02:51:12 PM |
| Object: |
Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
.
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 03:07:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 03:57:23 PM |
|
|
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 07:00:21 PM |
|
|
In article <n6Sdnd_3_ouo46PYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 11:52:47 PM |
|
|
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:pOx%g.15726$TV3.10307@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
In article <n6Sdnd_3_ouo46PYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
Do they use lasers?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 12:23:52 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:pOx%g.15726$TV3.10307@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
In article <n6Sdnd_3_ouo46PYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
Do they use lasers?
And what about those machine gun toting butterflies, hey?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 07:07:31 AM |
|
|
Bobby Bryant wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
Not bloody likely, they only go for virgin girls.
--Jeff
--
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
is the death of knowledge.
-Alfred North Whitehead
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 08:49:51 AM |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bobby Bryant wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
Not bloody likely, they only go for virgin girls.
Well as a girl, I'm a virgin...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 11:21:50 AM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bobby Bryant wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote:
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
Not bloody likely, they only go for virgin girls.
Well as a girl, I'm a virgin...
No, no, no. It still would violate Unicorn Union rules.
--Jeff
--
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
is the death of knowledge.
-Alfred North Whitehead
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 06:52:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:21:50 -0400, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bobby Bryant wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote:
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Wait 'til you encounter a unicorn!
Not bloody likely, they only go for virgin girls.
Well as a girl, I'm a virgin...
No, no, no. It still would violate Unicorn Union rules.
The old non-standardised rules, or the new Uniform Unicorn Union
rules?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 01:25:32 AM |
|
|
In article <n6Sdnd_3_ouo46PYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbryant@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:%nu%g.21646$6S3.14988@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Personally, I hate all the Cherenkov radiation emitted by those damn
floating, rocket-powered, invisible weasels.
Stealth weasels!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 07:51:38 PM |
|
|
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Ouch! Damn it--- SOMETHING bit me!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 08:22:36 PM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2006 17:51:38 -0700, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Ouch! Damn it--- SOMETHING bit me!
Naahh, I just can't see it.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 07:50:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:07:23 +0000, Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <1161719472.065571.254180@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival tool.
How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
How do you know they didn't?
Really! You never saw the movie "Harvey?" How about "Fiend without a
Face?"
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boris Mohar" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 05:47:48 PM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2006 12:51:12 -0700, "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQWxIrSRDQQ
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca
void _-void-_ in the obvious place
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 04:04:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:51:12 -0700, neo wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with current
physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity, FTL,
invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism will
never be part of physics.
That conclusion would only be valid if we could determine that random
mutation has already tried every possible biologic system, and that
biologic systems can implement anything that is physically possible. Both
those premises are suspect.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival tool.
How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 03:14:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:51:12 -0700, neo wrote:
[...]
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
You have never heard of no-see-ums?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 10:37:33 PM |
|
|
neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
Logic and reasoning not big where you come from?
--D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 12:25:48 PM |
|
|
David Iain Greig wrote:
neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
Logic and reasoning not big where you come from?
He must live in a "red state."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 11:07:10 PM |
|
|
In article <cabal-slrnejtmvt.l54.dgreig@darwin.ediacara.org>,
David Iain Greig <dgreig@ediacara.org> writes:
neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
Logic and reasoning not big where you come from?
Logic and reasoning not big on Usenet.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "leo" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 02:52:22 PM |
|
|
neo ha escrito:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
this cloak is already in existence. It is the cloak that god is
wearing for the last four or five millenia. That why atheists and
normal people cannot watch god.
Leopoldo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
27 Oct 2006 01:36:10 AM |
|
|
neo wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
You seriously need to learn logic and set theory. Most 10 year olds can
point to the huge flaw in your "reasoning".
Klaus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
26 Oct 2006 11:54:32 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
I have to quote Charles Babbage, the first computer engineer (when
asked by members of Parliament if, when given the wrong information,
his machine could still come up with the right answers):
"I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that
could provoke such a question."
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
24 Oct 2006 03:56:25 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
All species has some survival mechanism which is consistent with
current physics theories.
But since no animal has developed inertial propulsion, anti-gravity,
FTL, invisibility cloak mechanism, we can conclude that said mechanism
will never be part of physics.
Especially I am curious about invisibility cloak. Biggest survival
tool. How ID/Evolution failed to develope invisibility cloak?
No, Neo. Evolution is not directed, and it only modifies what has come
before. If there is no way to get to FTL drive or invisibility cloaks
in incremental steps, with each step an improvement, then it cannot
evolve. And while some general abilities may be expected, some uncommon
ones may never develop at all via evolution.
We can make machines and other things out of materials that living
chemistry cannot produce; we can make things with a specific goal in
mind, and put up with any intermediate steps which produce nothing
useful; we can take parts from different machines and put them together
no matter what their lineage might be; we can use sources of energy not
available to living things (e.g. nuclear power).
There is no reason to expect life to produce all possible technology.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Denny" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 08:37:59 AM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
No, Neo. Evolution is not directed, and it only modifies what has come
before. If there is no way to get to FTL drive or invisibility cloaks
in incremental steps, with each step an improvement, then it cannot
evolve.
No. You make the same mistake ID'ers make. If the incremental steps
don't provide an advantage they can't evolve. That is wrong. As long as
they don't cause a disadvantage, they certainly can evolve.
The common ancestor between humans and chimps most likely had hair that
never grew longer than a couple of inches. Humans evolved hair on their
heads which can grow to excessive lengths. What advantage does this
offer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure of Intelligent Design and Evolution. |
25 Oct 2006 11:30:08 AM |
|
|
Ken Denny wrote:
Kermit wrote:
No, Neo. Evolution is not directed, and it only modifies what has come
before. If there is no way to get to FTL drive or invisibility cloaks
in incremental steps, with each step an improvement, then it cannot
evolve.
No. You make the same mistake ID'ers make. If the incremental steps
don't provide an advantage they can't evolve. That is wrong. As long as
they don't cause a disadvantage, they certainly can evolve.
The common ancestor between humans and chimps most likely had hair that
never grew longer than a couple of inches. Humans evolved hair on their
heads which can grow to excessive lengths. What advantage does this
offer?
It flummoxes Peeping Toms?
--Jeff
--
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
is the death of knowledge.
-Alfred North Whitehead
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Long, silky hair indicates long-term health. |
25 Oct 2006 10:21:32 PM |
|
|
Hi Jeffrey_Turner, Re: Why humans have long hair,
Long, silky hair indicates long-term health.
( and it gives you something to grab on to )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Long, silky hair indicates long-term health. |
26 Oct 2006 01:06:55 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25_5_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Jeffrey_Turner, Re: Why humans have long hair,
Long, silky hair indicates long-term health.
( and it gives you something to grab on to )
Oh well, guess I'm dying young :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Long, silky hair indicates long-term health. |
25 Oct 2006 10:33:53 PM |
|
|
=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?= <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25_5_@Cotse.NET:
Hi Jeffrey_Turner, Re: Why humans have long hair,
Long, silky hair indicates long-term health.
( and it gives you something to grab on to )
So, why don't we go have our pits and 'nads styled? I can't buy that as a
general rule, because it's so often violated.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense,
has always been and always be the last resort of the boob and the bigot."
-- Eugene Gladstone O'Neill, American playwright (1888-1953)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Long, silky hair indicates long-term health. |
26 Oct 2006 12:10:04 AM |
|
|
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?= <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25_5_@Cotse.NET:
Hi Jeffrey_Turner, Re: Why humans have long hair,
Long, silky hair indicates long-term health.
( and it gives you something to grab on to )
So, why don't we go have our pits and 'nads styled?
We don't? Oh. Excuse me for half an hour...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Humans advertize a lot. |
26 Oct 2006 12:19:24 AM |
|
|
Hi John_Wilkins and Enkidu,
Arm-pit hair isn't long... it just keeps you cool.
Pubic hair is about nerve endings;
it doesn't advertize your long-term health, so it doesn't need to be long.
Long hair on the head is an ad... humans advertize a lot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
