"Yeah, we need more rainbows and puppies and unicorns too."

Call me when it happens please.

There is ZERO evidence that anything you claim ..exists...there could be other universes,there could also an invisible magic unicorn under my bed,that only I can see...the evidence that either of those things exist..is the same.......ZERO.
Everything else you said about computers makes no sense and doesn't relate to the original subject in any way...

It's also possible we live inside a unicorns ass, but there is zero evidence to support that.

There are no parts of the universe that are physically separate from us.

Congratulations! Your video, Unicorns, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 19 Badge!

Your video, Unicorns, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 58 Badge!

What ridiculous religious tripe...it's been proven that trolls ate all the unicorns a long time before the flood.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming.

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

At this point, you would have to either monumentally stupid or willfully ignorant to believe in it.

"Woo" is a pejorative term for any pseudoscientific nonsense.

It can include but is not limited to:
Homeopathy, chiropractics, reki, creationism, crystals, cupping, dietary supplements, chromotherapy, aromatherapy, acupuncture, astrology, reflexology, yetis, unicorns, fairies, Angels, prayer and pretty much everything Deepak Chopra says

It sounded to me like he was saying it's great because, afterwards, you are just so happy you aren't dead of overdose or totally brain dead/fried. That doesn't sound like a good reason to take a drug...to be relieved when the experience is over that you didn't die.
As an aside, plenty of atheists have taken DMT and not suddenly 'found religion'. It's really insultingly ignorant when religious people say 'no one can do "X" and remain an atheist', as if we simply haven't heard about this god thing and just need to hear about it (or trip balls, or see a rainbow, or get a sloppy blowjob from a unicorn) and of course we'll believe.

So lets consider...
Any person (Male or Female) goes through a careful mental checklist (in their mind) on what they consider to be a good mate.

1). It would seem natural that a typical person would rule out crazy.
Crazy, as defined as someone who is in direct contrast to another's beliefs, views actions and reactions.

2). It would seem natural that a typical person would pick a mate that would be attractive to them. Attractive defined as healthy, a great attitude on life, dedication to the other member, and a decent outlook on raising children mentally and physically. I'll also add that "certain something" or "spark" that appeals and catches one's eye. (Attractiveness is NOT defined by the media's representation of men or women, it's a personal choice based on any persons likes and dislikes)

3). It would also seem natural that we all have a certain amount of self doubt. So we don't tend to choose too high above our station in life. We choose a mate based on being equals. We plan to grow with them at a certain calculated rate as we make our way though this life.

4). There are potential mate choices that we, at first, choose but realize quickly that the other person isn't quite what they seemed or we garner little respect for them due to getting to know them a little better.

5). The unicorn factor - no one is perfect. NO ONE.

So what's left? we want a mate that isn't crazy, somewhat attractive, someone not out of our reach, and someone who has a proven track record and that person may have flaws but noting we can't over look - because everything else outweighs those small flaws.

So basically his observations are fairly close to how we choose our mates.
BUT - as Lann says, him making this graph and presenting it the way he does is generally offensive. Offensive to either male or female outlooks because he misses something - something very crucial: People are unpredictable and independent thinkers. We make decisions that don't make sense to any one but ourselves. We are chaotic, we have emotion, love and passion. We see things that are below the surface and we all judge people differently.

Personally I found his observations crass and ill-informed but I don't think he even realizes it. It's a thought in his head that's gone unchallenged and seems like it's a huge joke for him.

unicorn translation: "Look out, trolls are coming and they're hungry! Run away!"
She was only trying to help

Firstly i'd like to say that it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing this, but rather somehow interested in some sort of conflict. I'm not, and i spent a good while thinking about my post before making it; your suggestion that i didn't read your post is soundly rejected. Possibly you didn't read or acknowledge the content of your own post because you have forced yourself into a position where all i have to do is show one single example of something being funny at the expense of no one or nothing to prove you wrong and now you have to be rude (the first sign you know your position is indefensible) and provide little to no justification of any of your numbered points (because you know they are weak).

I'll be honest, i'm not going to entertain suggestions that a joke can be at the expense of an inanimate object or fictional character. Between that and your distinctly shoddy arguments I think you're trolling.

A joke at the expense of a stick? At the expense of a fictional character? ET is not something or someone. It doesn't exist, it is a construct of our imagination and does not have physical form. It isn't even a "thing" (if i say that unicorns are arrogant bastards, does that make me xenophobic? They don't exist, but if ET can suffer jocular expense, unicorns can suffer expense at my comment also. I hate martians too, they're all short, ugly, grey bastards. Am i a racist now?). The zebra thing isn't actually a riddle - it pretends to be a riddle and ends up being silly; i can't understand your reasoning on this and you didn't explain it (no surprises there, your post is full of holes).

When you tell someone a joke, you are entering into a contract by which both people know that word play or trickery is going to be involved. By taking part in the joke, you are voluntarily allowing yourself to be misled so that a juxtaposition of ideas in your head makes you laugh. You aren't laughing at the expense of yourself. In the same way as reading a book or watching a film - you are not being lied to, you are not being tricked, you are a willing participant. When a magician performs a trick for you, you are suspending your disbelief and participating in a flight of fancy for entertainment purposes. Magic isn't shadenfreude either - no one suffers expense, they both enjoy and know that skilful subterfuge has taken place - though i'm sure you'll argue the contrary before you admit you've over committed to your point.

If a clown puts on an act for you and you laugh when his trousers fall down, you aren't laughing at the expense of the clown because he did it intentionally to make you laugh, he did not suffer expense. You are not laughing at the expense of yourself because you know that what he is doing is an act, you did not suffer expense (except for the ticket price, badum tish - there's another 'joke' at the expense of nothing/no one).

What you've tried to do is supply the definition of "joke" or "humour" such that the definition involves the word "trick" in a negative context and thus lead to shadenfreude. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do, which is what i tried to explain to you earlier; if you want to say "to me, everything is shadenfreude - i laugh only ever at the expense of something/someone" then i say fair enough, but that is not what you initially said.

So if/when you first heard the stick joke, you laughed AT the stick? The ET joke, you laughed AT ET? You laughed AT the mathemetician? I don't believe you, but regardless that isn't the point you made; many if not most other people are not laughing at ET or the stick, they are laughing at the juxtaposition of ideas. And therefore comedy/humour (not your very specific definition of it, which is irrelevant to our debate) is not ALWAYS at the expense of others, even if i accept that something that doesn't exist/is inanimate can suffer an emotional expense.

And finally, i don't understand the metaphorical suggestion that i shunned your need for air, when actually i spent a good 20 minutes providing you with air only to have you turn round and say "that's not air, it's nitrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of other gases!" and pull a trollface before passing out. Don't worry though, i'll drag you back to shore and make sure you're ok (this post).

So this is what the guy from Unicorn Kingdom Club has been up to... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MKyku2cvl4