you literally can not wait to not buy it. It's practically impossible to wait to not buy it since you're busy not buying it right now :p

Scott pilgrim was made before the last book, if I recall correctly

I think that perfect world would be riddled with cancer :p

as someone who spent most of his youth reading fiction and non-fiction books I'd kindly disagree. Books have made me a lot smarter.

1) The first argument is based on a falsehood, both sexes give equal amounts of genetic material to the offspring, it's not the case that one sex "gives" and the other "takes" genetic material. The genes of the male and female get mixed. Also, single-celled asexual organisms allready have a mechanism in place called…

"Why do we only experience three or four dimensions?" & "Why was there slightly more matter shortly after the Big Bang than antimatter?" are scientific questions, not religious ones. If you want to keep the what/how vs why distinction (which is a useful and meaningful one) they come down to what are the dimensions of…

I'm especially interested in why a former high school science teacher thinks he knows better than the pope how to interpret scripture...

Well, actually, I'm from 1987, and for me, landing on the moon is some thing of the past we learned of in school. There hasn't been a moon landing in my life. Space exploration is something robots do for my generation. It would be amazing to see a man land on the moon NOW.

There's more stars in the sky than human beings, there are some 13000 asteroids with a name. His is rarer, so he wins.
Also, your response is akin to "david attenborough has a bug named after him? Big deal, my nephew's kid's second name is named after me, birth certificate and everything"

Well, I'm going to side with Douglas here. You are right that they all involve acceleration; but all that acceleration is just physics at work (gravity, magnetism, etc.) and thus quite deterministic. If you travel back through time, those still work (Imagine it's like winding back a movie of a ball dropping, the ball…

I came here to say the original six "Dune" books, but since someone else allready mentioned those, I'm going with Stranger in a Strange land. It's a great book that made me feel cultural relativity much more deeply than any other book ever has; it also gave me a different feeling towards religion and what it means to…

Well, I'd add Chapterhouse Dune to that list and remove Dune Messiah. But that's personal I think, I reread Dune, God-Emperor and Chapterhouse several times and continued to find new insights in them every time. The others not so much.

Evolution decides nothing. Evolution isn't personal or active, it has no agency whatsoever. And evolution has given us post-menopauzal women and gays who don't procreate. And bigots.

Let's just euthanize every woman after menopauze; they can't procreate and barely any animal has menopauze; it's clearly unnatural and wrong.

Take enjoyment out of the argument and I doubt a lot of straight people would procreate. Just saying....

heritage, environment principles and evolutionary theory never, ever make a moral judgement like "it's right" or "it's natural". Those are social constructs. Cannibalism, pedophilia and incest are considered perfectly ok in some societies (e.g. eating the heart of the deceased shaman in certain tribes, incest in…

I absolutely endorse your point of view that homosexuality is at least partly a genetic (biological) trait, but the brain scans argument is really, really weak evidence because a) it's only a correlation and b) we absolutely don't know what causes what here; the brain has enormous plasticity and we just don't know if…

ever drank alcohol? Apply the same reasoning to drinking alcohol please.

There's a lot of animal species with homosexual individuals or behaviors, and statistical models clearly show an increase in survival chances of younglings when there are homosexual peers in the parents generation. The world isn't all male, but neither is the world all gay, so I fail to see the meaninglessness of the…

Your post clearly shows you know nothing of statistics. There's a difference between ratio and proportion, and depending on which population says they're gay (the offenders or non-offenders) the numbers may increase or decrease. You're interpreting only according to your own pre-set belief. Yes, I completely agree…