It's almost certainly a numbers game. They just didn't show the many times that it didn't work.

Dawkins wasn't in the elevator. His involvement came from a few forum posts where he said some stuff that was rather patronizing. Not that I think Watson's position was any less so, but it's a good example of neither side being in the "right".

Sounds like this guy has an awesome job. "Let's see what happens when we introduce this flaming object into this flammable material!"

Yeah, the "missing link" between chimps and humans that we are still "looking for". No wonder they don't think anyone in the movie was stupid, these guys are apparently just as stupid.

"People want more". Yeah, the people who *aren't* getting stopped and frisked.

You know, I'm not a Palin fan, but she wasn't really wrong on the 1st ammendment issue. If you've got Mayors calling for boycotts of a store because of comments they made, then that's government officials violating the ammendment. There's nothing wrong with ordinary citizens calling for a boycott, but as soon as you have elected officials doing so, you've crossed a line.

The rest of the things she said, on the other hand, were batshit crazy.

It's a non-story from the "contempt charges" angle. It's a valid story from the "2 guys sexually assault a woman" perspective. Although we really don't know enough details to go much beyond that. We don't know what the plea bargin they worked out is. We don't know if the judge will agree to the plea bargin, or impose a stronger sentence. As for the policy, it's pretty standard for cases involving minors - at least here, I can't say about there.

She doesn't face anything at this point: http://gawker.com/5928410/

The defence lawyer tried what defence lawyers try, thanks to the internet it blew up in his face, and he withdrew the motion. Even it wasn't withdrawn, the chances of a successful contempt charge was pretty low. This was really a non-story.

"It was an accident"?? Yes, I'm sure you just tripped, and your dick ended up in some other woman.

Idiot.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:


No.
That was facts. As far as I could make out, every one of these claims are well-documented with mountains of evidence and hard science to back them up.


We have no idea how many planets there are in the galaxy. We haven't discovered enough of them to determine any sort of pattern. So claiming that we "know" there are 1.6 planets per star is indeed speculation. Similarily, suggesting that "The Big Bang did not need a cause" is speculation. We don't have nearly enough information about how it happened, or under what conditions it happened to be able to do anything more than theorize at this point.

There are other examples, but I'm too lazy to go through them all. Claiming certainty about things for which we have insufficient evidence to make such claims is poor science.

Well that was a great deal of speculation, rather than facts.

Pretty sure you can't blame the Earth for asteroids. Just saying.

Ok, I'll admit it - I had no idea eagles could swim.

He didn't really touch on it specifically in this video, but it's interesting to note the mental disconnect between the two segments. In one, he's effectively claiming that killing children is great, because they get to go to heaven, and in the other, he's claiming that abortions are "wantonly destroying" children. So which is it? Is killing children awesome because they go to heaven, or horrible because they are being wantonly destroyed?