I need some info on anyone who would like to help... I am the first e Merchandising major at the University of North Texas and I am expected to find out all about the ever shy and elusive computer geeks for a presentation.

Were it not for the vast numbers of geeks in my own family (physist, consultant, web master/ editor, programmer, and ansi artist) I would have thought, that the true geeks, like the snipe, did not exist.

So will you help this naive, dyslexic, and lady? Will you educate me in the ways of the geek?"

Another thing that has been recently brought to my attention is hackers, an off shoot of geeks. This may be superfluous, but if you think it may be helpful, try www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html. Beware, it's long.

You may wonder how I know of all these sites. It's because I was doing research for a speech on the geek movement when I stumbled a cross this site. And I'm glad I did.

Another thing that was instrumental to my research, but is rather controversial, is the book Geeks by Jon Katz. I only mention it because it helped me, and I know I'm going to get chewed out for reccommending this, so take it with a grain of salt.

Hope some of this helps. You've come to the best place on the internet to find out about geeks.

Oh, and don't forget about geek girls, either. There are some sites for that, but I don't know them off hand.

Edit: My tuxedo link isn't working, but when you click on it, look for Jargon File in hypertext. Also, domz.org won't let you go directly to the geeks and nerds topics; you have to start at their homepage. But they've added a lot more sites since I last visited, so it's worth it.

------------------
Corrections Officer,
Spelling Division

quote:

---

Thanks for the advise....
Really I would like to hear from you.

What makes you almost a geek?
What was the last major purchase you made this year?
What was the last purchase in general?
Are there geek traditions?
How do you know who a wanna be is?
What do geeks look for in their relationships?
How old is the AVERAGE geek?
Are all your freinds geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
What is the last non work/school related book you read?
If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?
How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
Do geeks do drugs?
Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
Should there be internet regulation?
Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?
How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
Family?
Politics?

Just to mention a few of my questions...
I know I could just ask my siblings, but I would prefer a more random sampling.

I realize these questions are personal, but they are also very important. I am a rather strait forward person. I hope my dirrect approach is not conciddered offencive. It is in fact, an extension of my eagerness to understand. SO feel free to ask me questions, too. That is only fair.

Mary-Mike aka Principessa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaryM:
You find before you one who is not a geek. Though surrounded by four siblings who are geeks, I am the creative mind in the bunch.

---

Hey, who sez geeks aren't creative (I write code and poetry, thank you)! I think you'll find around here we've got fairly loose definitions of what's "geeky" and they don't all exclusively focus on computers. Sounds like you're potentially fairly geeky yourself, M-M, just as Eponine is, though she won't exactly admit it outright yet.

Hey, welcome to the forums. They can be funny sometimes and nasty sometimes but they're always interesting, and you're sure to see a diverse array of folks who either consider themselves geeky or at least interested in geek culture. Glad to have you on board!

-ARJ, sometimes known as La Geekest of Go-Go

To answer your questions...

quote:

---

What makes you almost a geek?
- I am a full blown geek

What was the last major purchase you made this year?
I bought a brand new VCR for my dormroom

What was the last purchase in general?
Zelda6 fro my N64 (leave me alone about it I'm a ZeldaGeek)

Are there geek traditions?
Once a year we gather and take blood of a virgin programmer... lol

How do you know who a wanna be is?
Anyone who brags about being a 31334 h4ck0r... basically someone who thinks and preaches about how they are something better than what they truly are...

What do geeks look for in their
relationships?
That's a two page answer but other geeks works for a short answer

How old is the AVERAGE geek?
Heck if i know

Are all your freinds geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
mostly yea... the rest are just good human beings..

What is the last non work/school related book you read?
"No ordinary moments: a peacefull warriors guide to daily life" by Dan Millman

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?
Kevin Smith

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
5-10 usually combined.

Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
lots of things

Do geeks do drugs?
Some geeks that i know do some cyclotropidc drugs, but stay away from downers and alcohol for the most part in my observance.

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
What do you mean?

Should there be internet regulation?
I believe in giving a quick competancy test prior to access to the internet.

Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
I don't :P

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?
YES

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
Most Geeks I know are Atheist/Agnostic/Buddist

Family?
Yes

Politics?
I try not to get involved with the bickering of figureheads.

---

I'm an engineer by training, which means I am expected to be technically creative. I am also a gourmet cook and I grow roses (in season). Drawing pictures, forget it.

I'm not sure of the site, but you might want to track down that Sexiest Geek Alive contest site (somewhere in Austin, Texas ?). Last year was their first event, and had a very pronounced computer/IT slant to their definition of geek. A few of us mostly non-IT geeks complained about things, and so they are widening the definition for this year. I contributed a bunch of stuff which was mostly nuclear related.

Almost a geek? Most people at work don't think I'm a geek (I live in Canada, we seem to have a slightly different definition), but if I have to explain to a visitor in 3 words what I do, "I'm a geek." works very well. I got hooked on space before I entered elementary school, and nuclear physics before puberty. I went through metallurgy/materials engineering (which is among the least math-able and computer-able of the disciplines) and along the way became a almost a UNIX guru, and math/statistical physics major.

Last major purchase? Define major - ummm, a 5 disk DVD player (mostly used to play CD's).

Last purchase in general? I bought some parsley yesterday. On Sunday I made garlic soup, and my breath was getting a little strong.

Geek traditions? Learning the next language down the pipe. Getting the newest gadget. Keeping up with the technical literature.

Recognizing wanna be's? They are around, but never answer questions. Or, at least not correctly.

Geeks and relationships? Me, I'm looking for an (approximate) equal who is independent and athletic. I don't expect them to know FORTRAN, neutron cross sections or partition functions.

Average geek age? I'm near the old end at 40, I would guess somewhere between 20 and 25. The mode would probably be late teens.

No, very few of my friends are geeks. I've played soccer for almost 30 years, and been involved in things like teaching fitness for 10-15. I have a lot of aquaintences from those activities. Besides, there aren't many people in Edmonton who want to go back tot he moon.

Last non-work/school book? Too long ago to remember. Probably a novel: sci-fi or spy probably.

Spend a day talking to anyone? Technically, it would have been Richard Feynman, but I suppose that guy at the NIST who did the theory on spinodal decomposition (name escapes me at present, great theretician in materials science). Non-technically, one web site matches people up with celebrities. I've vistied there a few times over a few years, I always get matched with Jenny McCarthy (never knew who she was before that). So I guess she would be interesting to talk to.

Hours per day keyboard/online - gaming? Average is about 10 hours per day at keyboard/online. Gaming, maybe 20 minutes.

Online purchases? Yes, I've been to Amazon for books/music/videos (all of the Killer Tomato movies), ThinkGeek.com for t-shirts.

Drugs? The only drugs I do are ethanol and 1,3,7 tri-methyl xanthine (caffiene).

Push evelope of fed regs? Yes!

Internet regulation? Some, not taxation!

Speech? I speak English. I use about 50 computer languages/

Income derivation? Yes, it is my hobby of computing which pays the bills these days. (I wish it was materials engineering - especially aerospace/nuclear related.)

Spirituality? I try to be a good person. I try to perform random acts of kindness. I don't believe in organized religion.

Family? Never married. 1 LTR 10 years ago. 2 Sisters, parents. I don't see my sisters/Mom very often, they live 6 hours away. Dad I don't care, he's a MCP/jerk.

Hope these answers help. Good luck!

------------------
Mr. Zarquon
Welcome, Tasty Primate

quote:

---

wannabee /won'*-bee/ n.

(also, more plausibly, spelled `wannabe') [from a term recently used to describe Madonna fans who dress, talk, and act like their idol; prob. originally from biker slang] A would-be hacker. The connotations of this term differ sharply depending on the age and exposure of the subject. Used of a person who is in or might be entering larval stage, it is semi-approving; such wannabees can be annoying but most hackers remember that they, too, were once such creatures. When used of any professional programmer, CS academic, writer, or suit, it is derogatory, implying that said person is trying to cuddle up to the hacker mystique but doesn't, fundamentally, have a prayer of understanding what it is all about. Overuse of terms from this lexicon is often an indication of the wannabee nature. Compare newbie.

Historical note: The wannabee phenomenon has a slightly different flavor now (1993) than it did ten or fifteen years ago. When the people who are now hackerdom's tribal elders were in larval stage, the process of becoming a hacker was largely unconscious and unaffected by models known in popular culture -- communities formed spontaneously around people who, as individuals, felt irresistibly drawn to do hackerly things, and what wannabees experienced was a fairly pure, skill-focused desire to become similarly wizardly. Those days of innocence are gone forever; society's adaptation to the advent of the microcomputer after 1980 included the elevation of the hacker as a new kind of folk hero, and the result is that some people semi-consciously set out to be hackers and borrow hackish prestige by fitting the popular image of hackers. Fortunately, to do this really well, one has to actually become a wizard. Nevertheless, old-time hackers tend to share a poorly articulated disquiet about the change; among other things, it gives them mixed feelings about the effects of public compendia of lore like this one.

---

What makes you almost a geek?

There is no "almost" about it.� Ask anyone here, or look in the "Lunar menu and foods" thread in this forum.

What was the last major purchase you made this year?

Vehicle repairs.

What was the last purchase in general?

Groceries; salad fixings, fruit, wine.

Are there geek traditions?

Geekdom is not like a fraternity.� There are groups of geeks with their traditions (old and new; think lan parties) but no traditions common to all geeks.

How do you know who a wanna be is?

The wannabe is the one with a pile of attitude but no clue.

What do geeks look for in their relationships?

Depends on the geek.� Of the ones I know, they look for all kinds of things.� Most of them look for different things than I do.

How old is the AVERAGE geek?

Trick question.� There is no such thing as an AVERAGE geek!� I personally know geeks in their 50's, 60's and 70's and at least one proto-geek under 10.� Geekdom as a social grouping seems to be growing most strongly among teens and twenty-somethings.

Are all your freinds [sic] geeks? If not, what draws you to them?

I'd say perhaps 20% of my friends are geeks.� All of my friends are interesting people, most are highly intelligent.

What is the last non work/school related book you read?

The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold.� (It was a short break in my oft-interrupted read through The Cryptonomicon.)

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?

Dunno.� It would have to be someone with a lot of food for thought and the ability to hold up a conversation pretty much single-handed.� Maybe Buckminster Fuller.

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?

Keyboard:� About 12.� Online:� About 2 hours.� Gaming:� None.

Do you ever purchase online? If so what?

Books, music, electronic parts, convention memberships.

Do geeks do drugs?

This one does C₂H₅OH and the aforementioned trimethyl xanthine, plus acetyl salicylic acid for mouse elbow and the like.� I know others who do things like cannabinoids and such, but I don't care to try them.

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?

Let me re-phrase that:� Of all the people I know who are pushing Federal regulations, most of them are geeks.� But most of the geeks I know are doing nothing of the sort.

Should there be internet regulation?

Yes.� Spam should be subject to statutory damages per piece.� So should any other [ab]use of the Internet which amounts to theft of service or misappropriation of resources.

Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?

In my experience, the people who are so obsessed with Star Trek or Lord of the Rings to learn such things are usually not geeks.

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?

Extension?� I am able to find jobs where I am basically paid to play with the kinds of things I'd do at home.� This does take some of the pure pleasure out of it (I don't come home and beat out code any more), but I enjoy getting a secure living out of something I still love doing.

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?

This geek finds it in the Sagan sense.� "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder."

Family?

Not yet.� Still looking.

Politics?

My leanings are small-l libertarian, because my impression is that legislators are either so far behind the curve or so deep in the pockets of special-interest lobbies that they can't or won't do the right thing.� The best thing they can do is to keep out of the way.

What makes you almost a geek?
Like T0, there is no almost to it, geek and proud

What was the last major purchase you made this year?
Well going in price it would have to be the G4, going in time it would be the return ticket to the US (unless you count car and bike repairs, which cost more than the ticket)

What was the last purchase in general?
Lamb kebab for lunch.

Are there geek traditions?
Not to my knowledge, but I would not be surprised to see some out there.

How do you know who a wanna be is?
weirdo513 gave you the definition, though as a geek you just know. There is nothing specific that will tell you that the person is a wannabe. It is a general attitude thing.

What do geeks look for in their relationships?
Are they alive?
Seriously, someone to talk too and who understands that you want to go out gaming at weekends, or prefer to spend time in front of a computer screen.
Being able to communicate is VERY important.

How old is the AVERAGE geek?
What is the average age of humanity? Geeks are found in all age groups, remember that there are many types of geeks, not just computer geeks (which mundanes assume to be the only kind).

Are all your friends geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
No. Most people mention my kindness and willingness to help out. I have heard the word 'adorable' linked quite often with my name.

What is the last non work/school related book you read?
Finished R.A. Salvatore's 'Luthien's Gambit' a couple of days back, now reading 'The Dragon King' by the same author. I read two to three books a week.

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?
Alive - Angus Young (if he could teach me to play guitar even better)
Dead - Marilyn Monroe

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
At the keyboard, 10-12 hours; online, 8-10 hours (connect at work for job); gaming, 1-2 hours average per week, a lot more at weekends; online gaming 0 hours.

Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
Yes. Geekculture T-shirts , other T-Shirts, CD's, books. Living in a french language culture I have to get my english fix from somewhere.

Do geeks do drugs?
Personally I have, but it is not part of the culture, unless you are talking about the legal ones - tabacco, alcohol and caffine (and maybe soon cannabis, well in Switzerland at least).

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
I do not think that this is true just for geeks.

Should there be internet regulation?
Everyone should be made to take a Netiquette exam before being allowed to connect and certain infractions would get your connection revoked (typing in all caps, unsing l33t in the wrong environment etc.)
Oh, you meant by governments or corporations, NO WAY!

Do geeks speak english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
No, they also speak French, Spanish, Swedish, German, Portugese etc.
Everyone speaking Klingon would be great though, why bother with Esperanto.

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish talents?
Yes, I am a computer developer at the moment.

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
In mine, not at all. Personally I abhor organised religions. I suppose that you could say that being an Atheist one has their own personal spirituality.

Family?
Important in my case, dispite my brother being 10000 kilometres away. I speak to my parents at least three times a week and try to see them as often as possible (they live 40 kms away).
I would also like to start one of my own, but no luck in finding a like-minded lady.

Politics?
I try to avoid the subject, but I do vote. I vote along my ideals and not a party line. Of course having to vote on average 3-4 times a year you can get complacent (sp?).

keyboard...online...gaming?
10 (8 work) 2 1 (I play a mean MahJongg)
Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
Yes. Books, auto parts.
Do geeks do drugs?
The four major food groups: Beer, Pizza, Caffeine and Nachos.
Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
Varies. I know an older geek who is a bit afraid of a visit from the DOE. Some I know feel they should be allowed to do anything that won't hurt anyone else.
Should there be internet regulation?
"Do not enter" signs on every AOL CDrom. Actually, I like it free. It won't last, but one can look for the corners.
Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
Most at work speak English, C and Perl. A smaller set speak dialects of Chinese, and another set speaks sPlus or Mathmatica.
Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish talents?
Yes.
How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
I discovered that God has a sense of humor. If one ignores Him, the humor gets rough. YMMV.
Family?
Nuclear family lives 2K miles away. SO fills that void, and we have two very spoiled dogs. I have a deal with the dogs: I keep them warm and fed, and they keep me warm and sane. A more complicated deal exists with my SO.
Politics?
Differ slightly from my SO's. We're both recovered liberals (I passed through a small stint of libertarianism) and I'm a moderate-to-conservative Republican. (she's a m-to-c Democrat. Go figure.) Fiscally conservative, heavy on the self-responsibility, and prefer to let the Government leave us alone.

Hope all that helps...

------------------
"Don't tell me about priests! Go on and on about living again after you die, but just you try it and watch their faces!"
-Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
Worship the Mighty Froglord!
Words of Wisdom: Never trust a man who tries to photograph you when you're naked. Or when he is...

What was the last major purchase you made this year?
Hmm... depends. The geeky purchase would be the digital camera and associated extras. The non-geeky purchase has to be the plane ticket to Juneau Alaska (frequent flyer miles couldn't quite get me all the way there).

What was the last purchase in general?
$80 worth of japanese candy and snacks to be given away last night (halloween). They were a big hit for the most part, but the green tea candies had an overwhelmingly strong flavor and turned out to be more of an inadvertant practical joke on the people who tried them. Of the non-major variety, a garden burger, fries and large diet coke from a local place.

Are there geek traditions?
Of course. Every social group has traditions. Generating and sharing your geek code, for instance.

How do you know who a wanna be is?
Anyone who pretends to be something they aren't is a wanna-be, geek wanna-be or otherwise.

What do geeks look for in their relationships?
The same things everyone else look for. We want someone who will love us for who we are rather than trying to change us into who they want us to be. Hopefully we're also looking for someone that we can love for who they are too, rather than for someone we can change into what we want.

How old is the AVERAGE geek?
Same age as the average human being? Geeks aren't a recent phenomena... look at Leonardo Da Vinci. If you're doing the math to find average ages of those you talk to, I'm 32.

Are all your freinds geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
No, they aren't all geeks. Mostly I'm drawn to intelligent people and those who share my quirky sense of humor.

What is the last non work/school related book you read?
Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide. If you mean story-wise, Realms of Fantasy's December issue (it's a magazine of short stories).

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?
Leetta. Nobody here knows her, but that's my answer. If it were to be someone famous, it would probably be Einstein. I enjoy the sense of humor he seemed to have in his writings.

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
8 hours for work on weekdays, usually 1-5 of my personal time. All spent doing a mix of work, gaming and online shenanigans. (that's the acual word used by the IS department when they figured out what I was doing to get on IRC earlier).

Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
Yes. Books, computer parts, software, candy, toys, audio equipment, cd's, dvd's, antique books, pillsbury doughpeople gifts for my mother... a little of everything, really.

Do geeks do drugs?
No more or less than any other non-drug related demographic, I would imagine. I personally indulge in caffeine and nothing else.

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
Sure. I break the speed limit on the highway every day.

Should there be internet regulation?
Yes, but nobody in the human race is impartial enough to do it fairly, so no.

Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
Geeks speak whatever language they were brought up to speak, plus whatever they learned in school for requirements and/or personal interests, plus whatever they learned on their own. Personally, I'm a native English speaker, but know a little French, German and Spanish. No Klingon or Tolkien dialects.

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?
Unfortunately.

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
The same as everyone else. Spiritual and Geek are not opposites. That said, I'd have to say I'm an agnostic who doesn't participate in organized religion, though I do pray and observe my religious beliefs (suspicions?) on a daily basis, generally while outdoors if the weather permits.

Family?
Drug addicts, alcoholics and trailer trash make up the majority of my relatives. I have nothing to do with them other than my mother.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nitrozac:
Hey, not that I'm trying to make a sale or anything like that,

---

Well, why the Hell aren't you? You need the money, remember?

Mary-Mike aka Principessa:
Thanks for the advise....
Really I would like to hear from you.

What makes you almost a geek?

Lack of time and knowledge.

What was the last major purchase you made this year?

Depending on how you define major: a TV/DVD/VCR combo; new exhaust pipe for old car; new hard drive/Windows ME/network card/new sound card for this computer.

What was the last purchase in general?

Dinner. Bought some books.

Are there geek traditions?

Yes, but they won't tell a non-geek about them, especially when she insulted them by implying they were non-creative.

How do you know who a wanna be is?

They post places like this, learn about computers, and try to acquire geekish knowledge because it's interesting, not because it might be profitable.

What do geeks look for in their relationships?

I suggest you read the complete "Girls,Girls, Girls!", "Guys, Guys, Guys!", and "All About Love!" boards, and the relationship and experience threads in "Our Stupid Lives".

How old is the AVERAGE geek?

Median in the early twenties, I think.

Guys,
Are all your friends geeks? If not, what draws you to them?

What are friends?

Basically, people interesting to talk to.

What is the last non work/school related book you read?

Just finished rereading The Light Fantastic by Terry Pratchett.

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?

Probably some one who could help me with my research into the Cold War.

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?

Varies. Not many, recently.

Do you ever purchase online? If so what?

Books, mostly.

Do geeks do drugs?

Personally, no. But some do.

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?

Yes. See http://devrandom.net/~dilinger/ for
a particularly stupid example.

Should there be internet regulation?

No, but there should be a bounty on spammers.

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?

Not yet.

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
Family?
Politics?

Too complicated to go into here.

SO feel free to ask me questions, too.

OK, what are you trying to sell?

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:

[b]How do you know who a wanna be is?

They post places like this, learn about computers, and try to acquire geekish knowledge because it's interesting, not because it might be profitable.
[/B]

---

OH NO! I really am a wannabe! What should I do now? Oh, I must leave. O, the shame!

Observation: Trying to find the "typical" set of information pertaining to a geek is like trying to find the same information of people who have an IQ over 130, etc. They are spread out everywhere, in every aspect of the world, job, busines and social situation, that the set of information would provide a harder way of making sense of the "geek." Except to release that geeks are everywhere, totally different from one another, no matter how close, and just have the similar tendancy to get really interested and pursue interesting subjects (Computer Science, Arts, Writing, engineering, everything really).

One could say everyone is a geek, just most people are too insecure to show their emotions, to allow themselves to pursue their avocation, etc.

Now returning you to your originaly scheduled program....

------------------
Mr. Zarquon
Welcome, Tasty Primate

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?

Yes. See http://devrandom.net/~dilinger/ for
a particularly stupid example.

---

I noticed this a few days ago, and decided I might buy if for my wife for Christmas (haven't yet decided). So I hit some of the usual online bookstores to check for reviews and to make sure the typical price wasn't ~$10, and I found two things. It's gotten very favorable reviews, and GeekCulture sells it for $2-$3 cheaper than the other places.

What makes you almost a geek?
Wadda ya mean almost??
What was the last major purchase you made this year?
My PIII motherboard + CPU...no wait my PDA
(PIII motherboard + CPU = Main elements of computer)
What was the last purchase in general?
Lunch
Are there geek traditions?
Someone already mentioned Lan parties.
(Lan party = group of people bring their computers to one location, connect them together on a
network and play games/surf the net)
How do you know who a wanna be is?
It's a relative distinction. The way I look at it, any one who knows less than I do is a wannabe,
and any one who knows more than me is a guru.
What do geeks look for in their relationships?
Speaking personally, no emotional headgames.
How old is the AVERAGE geek?
Define average.
Are all your freinds geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
No. Each one for different reasons. What draws you to your friends?
What is the last non work/school related book you read?
Fiction: George R, R, Martin's "A clash of kings" Non-fiction: Palm III handbook
If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
keyboard : 8-12 (total work + home) online: 4 gaming : 1
Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
No, no one will trust me with their credit card
Do geeks do drugs?
Some do, some don't, ratios the same as any "group" of people.
Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
See previous answer.
Should there be internet regulation?
No, it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
Where do you get your info from? I speak english because I was born in an english
speaking country. I like Star Trek, but I'm not a fanatic (I have friends who are). Ditto Tolkein.
Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?
Of course. (Could/would a non-geek design and repair data-logging equipment?)
How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
From reading the previous replies, there seems to be a lot of Agnostics among us. Sorry Darwin,
but there is too much beauty in the universe for it to be entirely "accidental".
Family?
Yes, thanks for asking.
Politics?
Only if I can't avoid it.

------------------
An intellect rivalled only by garden tools

Agnostic is not the same as being an atheist or believing in evolution, Mr. Bill. Please look up the definitions of terms before you use them in the future.

-American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (www.dictionary.com)

That said, what Mr. Bill may have been referring to is the fact that there is proof of the existence of a higher being in nature.

As for me, I don't, as some people do, think that science and faith are mutually exclusive. For me, science is the comfirmation of faith. I look at a single cell and it's many complexities and think about how many are in my entire body, and how they knew what kind of cell (skin, muscle, etc.) to be, and I simply cannot believe it happened by accident. Add to that that no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to how we made the jump from non-living gases and elelments to life forms, and I have to belive in a higher being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?

Yes. See http://devrandom.net/~dilinger/ for
a particularly stupid example.

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
I don't think that qualifies.� The author of the page in question wasn't pushing anything; he was more in the league of someone hearing about a set of "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS" tapes and moseying over to see what happened there.� The FBI's confiscation of his gear for looking around after the fact appears to be pure cluelessness on the agents' part; they could easily have used access logs and satisfied themselves that he hadn't accessed the site until after the site was cracked, so he couldn't have been the agent.� Instead, they decided to stomp on a little guy, because they can.

Just another example of government power being used stupidly, and another argument for the government having less power and having to prove their case better before being allowed to exercise any of it.

---

I disagee. He was more in the nature of someone who heard a place had been broken into, walked over, and started to see if he could get in too. Dumb!

Btw, I agree the Fibbies were unjustifiably heavy handed here, but the idea that they could clear him easily, or even know what he was doing, puts more faith in them then is justified.

Of course, the govt. should have less power. But people like the other Tau Zero, who posts on the chicks thread, keep giving them more power, so we're screwed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Zarquon: So if you could be a little more clear on what you are planing to use this information for, I know I would much appreciate it. I don't mean to throw a wrench into the discussion.

---

Just going to grind her down, or planning on bolting the conversation?

------------------
~Weirdo~
|Home Page|My Geek Code|Post Disclaimer|Bill of Rights

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eponine:
That said, what Mr. Bill may have been referring to is the fact that there is proof of the existence of a higher being in nature.

---

I highly recommend that you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (IIRC), Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Nonzero (I can't recall exactly who either is by at the moment), and anything you can get your hands on by Stephen Jay Gould. Required reading if you want to talk about theistic vs. atheistic evolutionism.

That being said, I won't start the fire if you don't start it.

Blind Harper:
And I reccommend that you read Darwin's Black Box.(can't think of the author off-hand...) I gives the non-evolution side of things from a non-religious point of view.

I will look for those books, but it will probably be a while before I get around to getting them, much less reading them. I have an enormously long reading list already, that keeps getting added to daily.

We didn't start the fire...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eponine:
And I reccommend that you read Darwin's Black Box.(can't think of the author off-hand...) I gives the non-evolution side of things from a non-religious point of view.

---

Behe may claim to be non-religious, but in this interview he claims that he has always believed.� Whether he was taken out of context, speaking imprecisely or lying is a good question.� I once found a bio page for him which claimed that he had studied divinity as well, but I must not be using the right search-engine arguments (and I said I'd stay away from search engines for the rest of the day... sigh).� I have a URL somewhere, I'll have to dig for it.

Whatever you do, do not take anything by Behe seriously unless it has passed peer review.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Zarquon:
Geeks are also very generous with giving information for those who ask for it (unless of course, that information is also confidential, etc. etc.) but also dont like being guinea Pigs or taken advantage of.

So if you could be a little more clear on what you are planing to use this information for, I know I would much appreciate it. I don't mean to throw a wrench into the discussion.

---

Well, if you did read her post carefully, you'd notice that she asked the questions of Eponine, not everyone.. hence the "almost a geek" question.

Stephen J. Gould is another excellent writer, but he seems to have this funny idea that humans couldn't have any heritable factors in behavior... I've got "Eight Little Piggies" sitting on my bookshelf, waiting for me to finish Cryptonomicon (and about twenty other hardcovers).

Do not neglect Carl Sagan.  The Dragons of Eden is a fascinating read if you can find it, and The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark is a must-read because it goes a long way toward explaining why people want to believe in things like miracles and UFOs, and why it's damaging to take these things seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
... including quotes where creationists have tried pulling fast ones by lifting stuff from context.� Not very truthful (or nice) of them, is it?� I think it's funny that some people find it necessary to advance their religion by ignoring one of their own commandments (only got ten of them, how hard could it be?), but they do.

---

Thanks for the links, Tau, but please try not to make generalizations. I'm trying really hard to not close off my mind to what you all are saying, but it's really hard when I feel such hostility. Don't let a small group of people define in your mind what the rest of the group is. It's insulting to me.

Also, because believing in creation is an act of faith, it's not provable. I can show you the evidence that I have for believing, but if another doesn't see that, then it means nothing to them. It would be like trying to prove an argument to an atheist with a Bible. If the Bible means nothing to them, then the argument is worthless. I also haven't seen any proof of evolution, however.(When I say evolution, I mean macroevolution, not microevolution) I haven't done great studies into this subject, just a book here and there. I really would like to know more about both sides of this argument, however, so I'll definitely read the reccommendations. Until then, I'm afraid, I can't really argue much.(even though I still think it would be fun )

As for the believing in things like miracles and UFOs, I have to say, you can't deny that there is a spiritual world out there. You have to be looking for the evidence, grant you, but it exists. Once again, this is not provable unless you're willing to look at the evidence ans take some of it on faith. I value my faith, while questioning it at the same time. I don't know what I believe yet, but I do know this much is true: a spiritual world exists and affects this world. I'm not attacking you for your beliefs, please don't attack me for mine.

PS: This stopped being addressed to Tau specifically after the first paragraph.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eponine:
no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to how we made the jump from non-living gases and elelments to life forms

Originally posted by Steen:
Euw... C'mon everyone, let's not turn this thread into a religious debate

Originally posted by Blind Harper:
I highly recommend that you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (IIRC),
Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Nonzero (I can't recall exactly who either is by at the moment), and anything you can get your hands on by Stephen Jay Gould. Required reading if you want to talk about theistic vs. atheistic evolutionism.

Eponine:
Steen:
Aw, why not? Debates are so much fun! Don't be afraid of the argument. Even of nobody's mind is changed, it's still fun!

Blind Harper:
And I reccommend that you read Darwin's Black Box.(can't think of the author off-hand...) I gives the non-evolution side of things from a non-religious point of view.

I will look for those books, but it will probably be a while before I get around to getting them, much less reading them. I have an enormously long reading list already, that keeps getting added to daily.

We didn't start the fire...
------------------
Corrections Officer,
Spelling Division

---

Sympathies on the reading list problem. Me too.

That said, the reason for not debating religion is simple. No one can agree on what constitures evidence for a position, or a valid argument, so you get nowhere. Much better to debate logic, where people will ususally agree to the rules beforehand. They won�t stick to them, but then you have the fun of pointing that out.

You haven�t missed much by not reading Dawkins or Dennet. Here is Dawkins explanation of the origin of life, summarized from The Selfish Gene, with a few comments by moi in brackets:

�Assume that the earth was lifeless once [seems to be true], and that it had a hydrogen rich reducing atmosphere [there�s good reason to doubt the possibility of this, though Dawkins doesn�t seem to know it]. Assume that natural processes produced a thick �organic soup� containing the chemicals we find in living things [ditto]. One of the spontaneously formed chemicals was �the Replicator� [Dawkin�s name], capable of reproducing itself from the chemicals in the soup. Lots of copies were produced, and from them life as we know it evolved.�

That�s what he said in The Selfish Gene. In a later and worse book, The Blind Watchmaker, he reveals he doesn�t really take this seriously, and offers another scenario, in which clay spontaneously evolved life, [I am not making this up], and then the clay life evolved into carbon-based life. He doesn�t take that very seriously either, but tells us the important point is to believe that life evolved naturistically.

Personally, as Heinlein put it, I prefer my religion straight rather than with soda, but Dawkin's is entitled to his faith. Just don�t bother expecting scientific evidence for it.

I looked through Daniel Dennet�s Darwin�s Dangerous Idea once, and it wasn�t
much better. See http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.3/Orr.html for a highly critical review by an evolutionist, and http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/br21.6/berwick.html for a critical review of another Dawkins effort, Climbing Mount Improbable. I�m not familiar with Harper�s third book, Nonzero, so on that basis I recommend you read it first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
[Darwin�s Black Box is] by Michael Behe, and it's been thoroughly discredited. You might want to look at this for a taste, or this analysis of DBB. If you
want a set of pointers to analysis of Behe's writings, try talkorigins.org or infidels.org.

---

Apparently we have rather different intellectual standards. The first pointer leads to a list of references, but no text. It is therefore impossible to evaluate any claims that they support or don�t support any position. It�s rather like pointing to a web page listing works by Duane(?) Gish, and claiming that they prove the shakiness of evolutionary theory.

The second pointer does lead to some content. My evaluation:

quote:

---

Originally written by Keith Robison, follow Tau Zero�s link above for the
complete text:
�In his book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are �irreducibly complex�, that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously and be assembled to form a system

---

No, Behe claims that certain systems will not work unless all their components are in place, and that this constitutes a problem for evolutionary theory because the system components must either arise simultaneously, or they must be evolved separately and sequentially, with the addition of new components not harming the organism. The fact that the person writing this �refutation� can�t get anything this simple straight is typical of the �defenses� of evolution I�ve seen.

quote:

---

Robison:
He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of "irreducible complexity" argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemial systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."

Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.

---

Ad hominem against anyone daring to do what scientists claim to do, question theories
and see if they fit the evidence. Also typical. One might want to consider a book that questioned the completeness of Newtonian physics in the pre-quantum days, without offering an alternative. Would that have been illegitimate too?

quote:

---

Robison:
Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is "irreducibly complex". Such a mousetrap consists of (p.42):
(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base
(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse
(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged
(4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied
(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is "irreducibly complex":

�Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...�

Suppose you challenge me to show that a standard mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. You hand me all of the parts listed above. I am to set up a functional mousetrap which at least mostly resembles the standard one, except I hand you back one piece. Can it be done?

Yep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mousetrap? On the floor. What if I assemble the mousetrap by pounding the staples into the floor? Would I have a fully functional mousetrap?

When the above was posted to talk.origins, Behe replied

�That's an interesting reply, but you've just substituted another wooden base for the one you were given. The trap still can't function without a base.�

Which completely misses the point. The base-free mousetrap still functions; it simply uses a component of its natural environment in its workings.

---

No, Robison misses the point, or perhaps dishonestly evades it. I don�t know whether he�s too stupid to understand the difference between getting by with a substitute component, and getting by without a component, or just doesn�t want to meet Behe�s argument, but in any case there�s nothing more to be said about this. Also typical of defenses of evolution, I�m afraid.

Robison goes on to demonstrate similar misunderstandings/evasions. In attempting to argue against Behe, he says:

quote:

---

Robison:
A running theme in much of molecular biology is genetic cascades, in which one gene triggers another gene, which triggers another. Two examples of cascades cited by Behe are the formation of blood clots and the complement system. The complement system is a set of proteins that are activated by antibodies; these proteins then create holes in the cell membranes of the invading bacteria and thereby disrupt the specific balance of solutes and ions required for the bacterium to live.

---

Well, actually, Behe was talking about protein cascades, where one protein catalyzes another. Or perhaps Robison doesn't know the difference between proteins and DNA?

Also, bacteria don�t have cell membranes, they have cell walls , and complement proteins kill the bactrium, because water rushes in uncontrollably and it explodes (or at least, that�s what I was taught in microbiology). The fact that Robison is apparently this shaky on the immune system makes me less than confident in his arguments. He goes on:

quote:

---

Robison:
A major claim of Behe's is that biochemical cascades are "irreducibly complex". The claim is that without all the parts of the cascade, the cascade cannot function, and that therefore known evolutionary processes could not produce such a cascade by sequential addition of steps. p.87:

�Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would immediately have to be
regulated. From the beginning, a new step in the cacade would require both a proenzyme and also an activating enzyme to switch on the proenzyme at the correct time and place. Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway.�

We can easily see that this broad statement is false; it is possible to posit such an evolutionary process. Furthermore, we can go from such a process to the expected results of such a process, and thereby make predictions as to what might be found in the living world.

---

We might be able to see it, if Robison quoted enough of Behe�s argument to know what it is. As it is, we can�t. IIRC, Behe argued that the clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, not that all cascades must be.

quote:

---

Robison:
Indeed, the hint of a mechanism can be found in Behe. Obviously, the cascade must have a start, so how does it start? p.83:

... it seems there is always a trace of thrombin in the bloodstream. Blood clotting is therefore auto-catalytic, because proteins in the cascade accelerate the production of more of the same proteins.
Starting pathway.
X<---X* ... This is hypothesized to be either spontaneous or catalyzed by X*. (Both cases are known to exist). A stimulus triggers the conversion of X to X*, and X*
autocatalytically drives this conversion also. X* then acts on a target. X--->X*[The last few symbols are added, since I can�t copy his graphic.]

---

So, hypothetical chemical X is converted to X*, causing more X production, and more X--->X*, and X* also forms a clot. Note that once this process starts, there is nothing to stop it. The process would appear to go on till the organism�s entire blood supply clots, killing it. This casts some doubt on the proposed evolutionary pathway, at least with me.

And Behe makes the explicit point that such hypothetical chemicals are always represented by symbols, rather than real formulas. Indeed, it is lack of just one of the components of the clotting cascade that causes most hemophila, emperical evidence that the �autocatalytic activity� of thrombin is not enough to form clots. Why therefore should I assume chemical X had this property?

Robison goes on to show how, given a living cell with conventional cell reproduction machinery, and the mysterious chemical X, mutation and selection might form a similar chemical Y that is apparently supposed to be good for clotting (the argument is rather vague, as such things usually are), and then mutate into a chemical cascade -- one that isn�t irreducibly complex, though. Perhaps one day Robison will learn to think well enough to produce good arguments, but he hasn�t yet. Indeed, I�m not sure he�s really learned to read yet.

quote:

---

Robison:
This is, of course, a model. A model should make predictions, and this model does. If a pathway evolved by such a manner, then consecutive steps in the pathway should be catalyzed by homologous proteins (a characteristic of both the blood coagulation and complement cascades, two examples given by Behe). If the proteins are encoded by adjacent genes (tandem duplication) or one gene shows the hallmarks of reverse transcription (no introns and a poly-A tail in the genomic sequence), all the better. We would also expect to find systems in nature with fewer or greater levels of cascading.

Is this the case with either the complement system or the clotting cascade? I'll confess I do not know for sure.

---

This is more than you see in most discussions, which assume that presenting a possible model constitutes a proof of the truth of evolution. It would be nice to see some research on the question, but I�m not holding my breath.

quote:

---

Robison:
Behe's silence on these points, the fact he did not even consider such an opposing model, or worse, that he never considered the predictions of his own model, does not bode well. Indeed, it is the critical examination of one's own model which separates cargo cults from science.

---

So, Robison presents a model, and walks away from it, and that proves Behe should
be disregarded, because he hasn�t researched Robison�s model. Wow.

Robison goes on to discuss the Kreb�s cycle, refuting Behe�s arguments again -- except that Behe didn�t bring up the Kreb�s cycle, or make arguments about it, IIRC. Robison certainly doesn�t quote any. This is usually referred to �setting up a straw man� in the logical circles in which I move.

quote:

---

Behe:
There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.

Robison:
I hope he corrects this in his next book/edition, since it is so clearly false.

---

Claim and counter-claim, but all we get is a list of some papers that allegedly refute Behe, with no content, so again, we can�t evalutate.

quote:

---

Robison:
Behe spends a whole chapter (Chapter 6), describing portions of the immune system.
After going through a section describing the production of antibodies, which he claims is an "irreducibly complex" process and therefore could not be the product of evolution, he makes a very interesting statement. p.131-132:

�Antibodies are like toy darts: they harm no one. Like a "Condemned" sign posted on an old house or an orange "X" painted on a tree to be removed, antibodies are only signals to other systems to destroy the marked object.�

Behe then goes on to describe the complement system. And nothing else. Leaving us with the impression that antibodies and complement, each supposedly "irreducibly complex," require each other for function.

The biological reality is quite different. Antibodies can function on their own.

---

First, the student of cheap debating tricks should note how Robison writes that complement is �supposedly �irreducibly complex,�" then says Behe is wrong, then drops the subject of complement entirely.

On antibodies, he has finally come up with a half-way valid point. Some antibodies have immune functions entirely on their own. These are blocking antibodies, that interfere with toxins and viruses by simply attaching to them. Behe wrote somewhat sloppily there. But complement, to my knowledge, does not function without anti-bodies, leaving the evolution of the eight component complement system unexplained, indeed unaddressed.

quote:

---

Robison:
There is a second way that antibodies can, in themselves, be much more than a "toy
dart" and certainly more than a marker. Antibodies are symmetric; they are composed of two identical halves, each of which can bind a target. Hence, antibodies can act as matchmakers, bringing together two foreign bodies so that they are concentrated and are
a larger target. If the target for the antibody is repeated on the invader, such as the repeating structure of a virus or an abundant protein on a bacterium, then antibodies can make very efficient matchmakers. So efficient that their targets precipitate out of solution.

---

*sigh* Bacteria and viruses are not chemicals dissolved in solution. They are solid bodies suspended in a liquid. Linking them together in an large clump may inhibit the ability of a virus to bind to a cell, but it may not. And no reason has been given to think that bacteria would not be able to continue to reproduce in this situation.

After this, there are some more speculations that show Robison�s lack of understanding,
but they aren�t worth going into.

quote:

---

Tau:
Behe may claim to be non-religious, but in this interview he claims that he has always believed. Whether he was taken out of context, speaking imprecisely or lying is a good question. I once found a bio page for him which claimed that he had studied divinity as well, but I must not be using the right search-engine arguments (and I said I'd stay away from search engines for the rest of the day... sigh). I have a URL somewhere, I'll have to dig for it.

---

Someone religous? Quelle horror. But your claim is factually wrong. Behe does not claim to be non-religous in Darwin�s Black Box .

quote:

---

Tau:
Whatever you do, do not take anything by Behe seriously unless it has passed peer review.

---

But of course, �refutations� of anti-evolutionary positions need not be held to this standard.

Robison�s page is a reply to Behe, who was in turn replying to a review of his book in The Boston Review by H. Allen Orr http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html. When you get done with Orr�s ad hominems of Creationists, Fred Hoyle, and Behe, analogies from computer programs (which are intelligent designs, exactly what evolution is supposed to exclude), a section with the title Know Thy Enemy (apparently, despite the constant claims that everything in science is open to continual question and test, questioning evolution is not allowed), historical claims without support, and sheer muddle, what�s left?

Well, Orr concedes that irreducible complexity exists in living things, then says:

quote:

---

Orr:
Behe's colossal mistake is that... he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

---

IIRC, Behe explicitly treats that possibility. He questions whether it will work. He also points out that this is all hypothesis and handwaving: the existance of such simple systems is seldom, if ever demonstrated, and claims that no research to reconstruct such evolutionary pathways is done.

Orr unwittingly illustrates this: he notes the chemical similarity of myoglobin and hemoglobin, and assumes that the body was able to get by, somehow, with just myoglobin (a protein that stores oxygen in muscles), and that gene-duplication mutations created hemoglobin out of myoglobin (the similarities are assumed to be evidence,
overlooking the possibility that chemical necessity may be responsible), and then glosses over such trifling facts that hemoglobin is found in red corpuscles that circulate in the blood system (heart, veins, arteries, clotting, serum, etc. whose origin still needs to be explained), and is poisonous if released from the red corpuscles (that�s why malaria is such an unpleasant disease). That there might be problems with all this is not considered.
Only critics of evolution are required to consider alternative possiblilities and objections to their theory.

In truth, the only reason I�ve been able to find for any of the various theories of evolution being convincing is that those who are convinced start out with the assumption that life�s origin and diversity must be capable of explanation without intelligent forces acting at any point. In fact, frequently that becomes more or less explicit: criticisms of Darwinism are claimed to be illegitimate unless another naturalistic theory is available to put in its place. If you hold materialism as a matter of faith, not to be trifled with, you may find such �reasoning� convincing. I don�t.

quote:

---

Tau Zero:
Do a simple search on talkorigins.org for "Richard Dawkins" and you'll find plenty of stuff... including quotes where creationists have tried pulling fast ones by lifting stuff from context. Not very truthful (or nice) of them, is it?

---

No, it isn't. They shouldn't do it, and neither should the evolutionists. But they do it too, alas.

quote:

---

Eponine:
Thanks for the links, Tau, but please try not to make generalizations. I'm trying really hard to not close off my mind to what you all are saying, but it's really hard when I feel such hostility.

...I'm not attacking you for your beliefs, please don't attack me for mine.

PS: This stopped being addressed to Tau specifically after the first paragraph.

---

<sarcasm> But eepers, your ideas are wrong, and dangerous to humanity.
Now get with the program, or come the revolution you're going up against the
wall</sarcasm>

My brain is currently decompressing from SAT 2s, so i will with-hold further postings until back to proper function.

See, this is why I didn't want to start the whole thing off. I say, read the books, take them on their own merits, read the peer-reviews, then make your own judgements.

That being said, my position is, Apply Occam's Razor. There are many theories as to how 'the start of life on Earth' could have occurred through purely natural, physical means. Whether they're provable or merely plausible is not for me to decide; I leave that to the experts. But in any case, throwing up your hands and just saying 'God must have done it' is not a valid retreat from the problem.

I leave you people alone for a day and look what happens...

First off:

quote:

---

steen:
Mr Bill wrote:
From reading the previous replies, there seems to be a lot of Agnostics among us. Sorry Darwin, but there is too much beauty in the universe for it to be entirely "accidental".

Agnostic is not the same as being an atheist or believing in evolution, Mr. Bill. Please look up the definitions of terms before you use them in the future.

---

Sorry, this was pure laziness on my part. By the time I got to the end of the questions, I was not feeling very "chatty", hence the last few short answers.

quote:

---

Eponine:
Agnostic: n. one who belives that there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

-American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (www.dictionary.com)

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

Eponine (again):
That said, what Mr. Bill may have been referring to is the fact that there is proof of the existence of a higher being in nature.

---

Uh, whoa. I didn't mean "proof". The beauty in the universe is my "reason" for believing in a creator, not "proof" one exists. That's why it's called faith.

quote:

---

Saintonge:
...But people like the other Tau Zero, who posts on the chicks thread,...

---

Huh? Did I miss a meeting?

snif..I'm so proud...snif

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Bill:
Only this group could take a vocabulary error from a questionnare and turn it into a discussion on God and genetics.

---