Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

Double wank and shit chips
Locked
Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#1

Post by Apples »

For those interested in dedicating off-Pit study-time to the fine-tuning debate, here is a summary of Stenger's points in his book:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/1 ... -argument/

Here is a reply to Stenger's case from Luke Barnes:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

Here is Stenger's response:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdf

Here is Barnes' two-part retort to Stenger:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... gent-life/
http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... er-part-2/

Bonus link - here is Barnes calling out PZ for some flippant statements about fine-tuning. PZ shows up to defend himself in the comments:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... p-z-myers/

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#2

Post by heddle »

Apples wrote:For those interested in dedicating off-Pit study-time to the fine-tuning debate, here is a summary of Stenger's points in his book:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/1 ... -argument/

Here is a reply to Stenger's case from Luke Barnes:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

Here is Stenger's response:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdf

Here is Barnes' two-part retort to Stenger:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... gent-life/
http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... er-part-2/

Bonus link - here is Barnes calling out PZ for some flippant statements about fine-tuning. PZ shows up to defend himself in the comments:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... p-z-myers/
Good stuff, thanks for the legwork.

ROBOKiTTY
.
.
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:47 pm

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#3

Post by ROBOKiTTY »

Personally, I think heddle has been unfairly dogpiled (but all dogpiling is unfair -- only KiTTYPiling is fair and righteous) in the undead thread for his one disclosure that was largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Hopefully things will be more evenhanded here.

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#4

Post by BillHamp »

Apples wrote:For those interested in dedicating off-Pit study-time to the fine-tuning debate, here is a summary of Stenger's points in his book:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/1 ... -argument/

Here is a reply to Stenger's case from Luke Barnes:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

Here is Stenger's response:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdf

Here is Barnes' two-part retort to Stenger:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... gent-life/
http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... er-part-2/

Bonus link - here is Barnes calling out PZ for some flippant statements about fine-tuning. PZ shows up to defend himself in the comments:

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... p-z-myers/
Thanks for the sources

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#5

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Since I'm disinclined to volunteer for the Jesse Powell Games quarter quell, I'm just going to summarize the debate so far:

Heddle: The fine-tuning of the universe is a problem for physics.

Joe Pitter: In what way?

H: It just is.

JP: Could you be more specific?

H: It's a problem because I say it is. I'm a physicist, and you're not. QED.

JP: The Weak Anthropic Principle seems to resolve the fine-tuning issue, by noting that only a carbon-based life form could observe conditions that produce carbon-based life forms.

H: No it doesn't.

JP: Why not?

H: WAP is just a way of looking at things.

JP: You still haven't given any specific reason why fine-tuning is a problem in physics.

H: Because fine-tuning is luck, and luck is bad.

JP: That's the answer begging the question. WAP states that the ostensible fine-tuning is illusory.

H: If you don't get what I'm saying, you're dense. I win the debate.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#6

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Since I'm disinclined to volunteer for the Jesse Powell Games quarter quell, I'm just going to summarize the debate so far:

Heddle: The fine-tuning of the universe is a problem for physics.

Joe Pitter: In what way?

H: It just is.

JP: Could you be more specific?

H: It's a problem because I say it is. I'm a physicist, and you're not. QED.

JP: The Weak Anthropic Principle seems to resolve the fine-tuning issue, by noting that only a carbon-based life form could observe conditions that produce carbon-based life forms.

H: No it doesn't.

JP: Why not?

H: WAP is just a way of looking at things.

JP: You still haven't given any specific reason why fine-tuning is a problem in physics.

H: Because fine-tuning is luck, and luck is bad.

JP: That's the answer begging the question. WAP states that the ostensible fine-tuning is illusory.

H: If you don't get what I'm saying, you're dense. I win the debate.
I never understood how people can be so disingenuous and still seem to be pleased with themselves. The way you characterize this is nothing even remotely close to reality. No reasonable person could read those posts and not at least concede that I argued that fine tuning is a problem because the apparent sensitivity in the creation of stars/heavy-elements to the values of the constants screams for an explanation. That "it just is" is not satisfying to scientists.

This is confirmed throughout the links posted above.

What pleasure do you get in putting putting some imaginary conversation in your head into a post? Really, I'm curious. Especially on a thread that was set up specifically (at least it seems to me, maybe I'm wrong) to have a serious discussion on the matter for those interested. ANd you come along and muck it up with snarkiness that doesn't even have the virtue of being clever.

What you have done with this post, on a thread set aside for a serious discussion, is the textbook definition of trolling. And here I am feeding you. My bad.

By the way you are completely missing the boat on the WAP. (Again, read the links.) WAP says , to paraphrase, that at some level we should not be surprised to be in a "lucky" universe because, after all, we are here. The proponents of WAP will be the first to point out that a) it is not an explanation and b) the fine tuning still requires an actual explanation. Some of the proponents of WAP are also the proponents of the multiverse as a fine-tuning explanation. There is not a single one of the the developers of the WAP who would state that "WAP solves it all, it resolves the fine-tuning problem, no further explanation is required," You think you understand the WAP--but in truth you are displaying your ignorance.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#7

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

[youtube]W8o_C50JFkc[/youtube]

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#8

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:[youtube]W8o_C50JFkc[/youtube]
Troll.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#9

Post by another lurker »

I wish metalogic42 was here to post some gay porn.

/sadpanties

Pogsurf

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#10

Post by Pogsurf »

I need to back-track a little bit, as my meaning was unclear in my earlier comment, so I'll re-quote these:
heddle wrote:2) I'm not sure I ever met a physicist who, after thinking about it, doesn't agree it is a problem. Those who are cosmologists, astro, or particle physicists pretty much already know it is a problem A, say, solid state physicist--who might not spend time thinking about cosmology might not immediately agree--but in all cases I have experienced will agree after a discussion. So I literally do not personally know any physicist who says that it is not a problem.
heddle wrote:2) sounds like an argument from authority by association. Why should I care for such a double fallacy?
At this point I knew were claiming to be a scientist, so, to me a non-scientist who couldn't judge the value of your scientific claims, you were making your arguments by authority. This would be fallacy number one.

So in your 2) above, you are claiming to know other physicists, who agree with you. This is an argument by association. This would be fallacy number two.

It's perfectly possible to make fallacious arguments, but for the facts of the matter to still be true. It just gives a poor reason for anyone to believe the argument as stated. Perhaps your interactions with other physicists are so mundane you may not realise others can be sceptical about the claims you make.

Having scanned the list of scientific papers you cited, I'm now as certain as I can be there is a scientist called Heddle who works in the right field, or thereabouts (I can't check this fully because I lack the specialist knowledge to do so). Is there some way I can verify that Heddle of the Slymepit is one and the same person? Could I e-mail you at some prestigious institution in order to check?

What I still don't understand is why Heddle the scientist wants to raise his point on the Slymepit. It is only on-topic a tangential way, as far as I can see. I grew up with two people who went on to become professors, neither of whom feel the need to drop questions about their respective specialities into the general conversation. From my point of view your interventions are unexpected to say the least. I will admit to having indulged in a tiny bit of trolling towards you, so I am still surprised you even bothered to respond to me. I apologise for this if you are indeed who you say you are.

With respect to you being a theist, no I don't think it matters (mostly*) to your scientific work. The argument made should stand on its own merits. I think you saying that you were a theist just lead to my own confirmation bias, on the limited understanding I had. I can only report how it seemed to me, even if my understanding may have later turn out to be faulty. I expect I was not the only one on the thread to think this way.


*I suspect there may be contradictions between theology and cosmology which you would have to reconcile somehow, but I don't know enough at this stage to know what these might be.

Pogsurf

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#11

Post by Pogsurf »

Damn, the second quote above got the wrong quotee. Should read:
Pogsurf wrote:2) sounds like an argument from authority by association. Why should I care for such a double fallacy?

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#12

Post by heddle »

Pogsurf wrote:I need to back-track a little bit, as my meaning was unclear in my earlier comment, so I'll re-quote these:
heddle wrote:2) I'm not sure I ever met a physicist who, after thinking about it, doesn't agree it is a problem. Those who are cosmologists, astro, or particle physicists pretty much already know it is a problem A, say, solid state physicist--who might not spend time thinking about cosmology might not immediately agree--but in all cases I have experienced will agree after a discussion. So I literally do not personally know any physicist who says that it is not a problem.
heddle wrote:2) sounds like an argument from authority by association. Why should I care for such a double fallacy?
At this point I knew were claiming to be a scientist, so, to me a non-scientist who couldn't judge the value of your scientific claims, you were making your arguments by authority. This would be fallacy number one.

So in your 2) above, you are claiming to know other physicists, who agree with you. This is an argument by association. This would be fallacy number two.

It's perfectly possible to make fallacious arguments, but for the facts of the matter to still be true. It just gives a poor reason for anyone to believe the argument as stated. Perhaps your interactions with other physicists are so mundane you may not realise others can be sceptical about the claims you make.

Having scanned the list of scientific papers you cited, I'm now as certain as I can be there is a scientist called Heddle who works in the right field, or thereabouts (I can't check this fully because I lack the specialist knowledge to do so). Is there some way I can verify that Heddle of the Slymepit is one and the same person? Could I e-mail you at some prestigious institution in order to check?

What I still don't understand is why Heddle the scientist wants to raise his point on the Slymepit. It is only on-topic a tangential way, as far as I can see. I grew up with two people who went on to become professors, neither of whom feel the need to drop questions about their respective specialities into the general conversation. From my point of view your interventions are unexpected to say the least. I will admit to having indulged in a tiny bit of trolling towards you, so I am still surprised you even bothered to respond to me. I apologise for this if you are indeed who you say you are.

With respect to you being a theist, no I don't think it matters (mostly*) to your scientific work. The argument made should stand on its own merits. I think you saying that you were a theist just lead to my own confirmation bias, on the limited understanding I had. I can only report how it seemed to me, even if my understanding may have later turn out to be faulty. I expect I was not the only one on the thread to think this way.


*I suspect there may be contradictions between theology and cosmology which you would have to reconcile somehow, but I don't know enough at this stage to know what these might be.
Since I am a physicist it is not an argument from authority. And regardless an argument from authority has to cross a threshold before it is a fallacy. It has to be that my argument is correct because X says so, and X is an expert. It is not an an argument from authority merely to point out that an expert agrees with you, or that you are right because you are an expert--otherwise we could never bring experts to bear in a discussion. So if you can make the case that my argument that fine-tuning is a problem boils down to "Susskind says it is a problem therefore I am right" then you have a point--but it takes more than my simply adding, to the argument, that other physicists agree. As for fallacy of association--I don't think you are doing it right. That is more of an argument like: "Vito is in the mob. Vito is italian. All italians are in the mob."

So I don't think you made your case.

As to whether I am the heddle on the list of papers-- I can't believe you actually want to confirm that. It is a very rare name. Do you actually suspect there is some chance I use his name and claim his papers? really? Now you could ask the people on here who know me, including Abbie and Phil, but if you really want to verify you can note that:

1) Many of the papers are related to nuclear physics experiments at Jefferson Lab:

https://www.jlab.org/

2) My jlab email address is heddle@jlab.org

Send me an email.
What I still don't understand is why Heddle the scientist wants to raise his point on the Slymepit.


Because a) I am a lurker here b) the subject of fine tuning came up c) I am interested in fine tuning and know something about it, so d) I contributed.

Pogsurf

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#13

Post by Pogsurf »

Thanks Heddle. It's all starting to make a little bit more sense. I won't comment further because I ought to go back and read what you said previously, now that the scales have lifted from my eyes.

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#14

Post by BillHamp »

heddle wrote:
Since I am a physicist it is not an argument from authority. And regardless an argument from authority has to cross a threshold before it is a fallacy. It has to be that my argument is correct because X says so, and X is an expert. It is not an an argument from authority merely to point out that an expert agrees with you, or that you are right because you are an expert--otherwise we could never bring experts to bear in a discussion. So if you can make the case that my argument that fine-tuning is a problem boils down to "Susskind says it is a problem therefore I am right" then you have a point--but it takes more than my simply adding, to the argument, that other physicists agree. As for fallacy of association--I don't think you are doing it right. That is more of an argument like: "Vito is in the mob. Vito is italian. All italians are in the mob."

So I don't think you made your case.

As to whether I am the heddle on the list of papers-- I can't believe you actually want to confirm that. It is a very rare name. Do you actually suspect there is some chance I use his name and claim his papers? really? Now you could ask the people on here who know me, including Abbie and Phil, but if you really want to verify you can note that:

1) Many of the papers are related to nuclear physics experiments at Jefferson Lab:

https://www.jlab.org/

2) My jlab email address is heddle@jlab.org

Send me an email.
What I still don't understand is why Heddle the scientist wants to raise his point on the Slymepit.


Because a) I am a lurker here b) the subject of fine tuning came up c) I am interested in fine tuning and know something about it, so d) I contributed.
Heddle, you are proof positive that a scientific education doesn't make necessarily improve critical thinking skills. Here are just a few problems with your argument.

1. "Since I am a physicist it is not an argument from authority." Uhhh, yeah, it is. Using your credentials as support for an argument is the definition of argument from authority. YOu need to provide evidence and logic, not your email address to back up your claims.

2. There are two Heddles at Jefferson, so it must not be that rare of a name. Oddly enough, they are both in experimental nuclear physics.

3. Heddle is a well-known muck-stirrer and Chrisitian apologist. You've posted some really stupid crap on over the years and your ideas have been thoroughly rejected time and time again. Your fine-tuning argument is but one of the many arugments you put forth in a vague and non-comittal way, avoiding any real debate and insisting that "physicists" agree you are right. It's just poor logic, which makes me wonder how in the hell you ever made it out of CMU.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#15

Post by heddle »

BillHamp wrote:
heddle wrote:
Since I am a physicist it is not an argument from authority. And regardless an argument from authority has to cross a threshold before it is a fallacy. It has to be that my argument is correct because X says so, and X is an expert. It is not an an argument from authority merely to point out that an expert agrees with you, or that you are right because you are an expert--otherwise we could never bring experts to bear in a discussion. So if you can make the case that my argument that fine-tuning is a problem boils down to "Susskind says it is a problem therefore I am right" then you have a point--but it takes more than my simply adding, to the argument, that other physicists agree. As for fallacy of association--I don't think you are doing it right. That is more of an argument like: "Vito is in the mob. Vito is italian. All italians are in the mob."

So I don't think you made your case.

As to whether I am the heddle on the list of papers-- I can't believe you actually want to confirm that. It is a very rare name. Do you actually suspect there is some chance I use his name and claim his papers? really? Now you could ask the people on here who know me, including Abbie and Phil, but if you really want to verify you can note that:

1) Many of the papers are related to nuclear physics experiments at Jefferson Lab:

https://www.jlab.org/

2) My jlab email address is heddle@jlab.org

Send me an email.
What I still don't understand is why Heddle the scientist wants to raise his point on the Slymepit.


Because a) I am a lurker here b) the subject of fine tuning came up c) I am interested in fine tuning and know something about it, so d) I contributed.
Heddle, you are proof positive that a scientific education doesn't make necessarily improve critical thinking skills. Here are just a few problems with your argument.

1. "Since I am a physicist it is not an argument from authority." Uhhh, yeah, it is. Using your credentials as support for an argument is the definition of argument from authority. YOu need to provide evidence and logic, not your email address to back up your claims.

2. There are two Heddles at Jefferson, so it must not be that rare of a name. Oddly enough, they are both in experimental nuclear physics.

3. Heddle is a well-known muck-stirrer and Chrisitian apologist. You've posted some really stupid crap on over the years and your ideas have been thoroughly rejected time and time again. Your fine-tuning argument is but one of the many arugments you put forth in a vague and non-comittal way, avoiding any real debate and insisting that "physicists" agree you are right. It's just poor logic, which makes me wonder how in the hell you ever made it out of CMU.
1) No it isn't. Try again. Before you want to claim a logical fallacy you need to learn when to use it properly. It is almost to hard to believe that you are dumb enough to think that someone providing their credentials (especially when challenged, as I was) constitutes an argument from authority.

2) This "point" really proves you are a dumbass. There is only one heddle at jlab who is a nuclear physicist (that'd be me.) There may be some references to my son who interned there as a computer programmer. Oddly enough, they are both in experimental nuclear physics. What a dumb comment. You are really a pinhead. You're slithering around jlab's site looking for fodder--and you can't even get your info right.

3) Yes, I have been thoroughly defeated all over the internet. You say so, so it must be true! One tactic of losers such as yourself is to declare victory in this manner. I've seen you get your butt kicked elsewhere! And oh yes I avoided debate! I defy you to find one physics question (do you know what physic is?) that was asked that I didn't make an honest attempt to answer. Just one. Go on, hot shot.

Jackass.

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#16

Post by Clarence »

I've gotta agree with Heddle that there has been some jackassery directed towards him on this thread.

In fact, I understand his argument, if not the physics behind it.
That is, why are the constants so tight? You wouldn't think that the change in the value of a constant by say, even one part in a million would make that much difference yet at far lower thresholds tremendous differences are made.

Now, there have been some good arguments against this position in that you if you arbitrarily change more than one of these constants sometimes things might 'factor out' so to speak.
And some people have simply asserted it is the luck of the draw which is a legitimate (though unprovable) answer.
Then there are the links to those papers, where one can see this stuff argued in more depth.

Anyway, I don't think the "Fine Tuning" argument proves much of anything really.
But it is a fascinating question to ponder.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#17

Post by Metalogic42 »

another lurker wrote:I wish metalogic42 was here to post some gay porn.

/sadpanties
http://i.imgur.com/E9WeHtK.jpg

My gay porn is intersectional.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#18

Post by heddle »

I have summarized my thoughts on this discussion here:

http://heb712.blogspot.com/2014/01/scie ... black.html

kinem
.
.
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#19

Post by kinem »

Hello. I was recently hounded off of Pharyngula for allegedly being a concern/tone troll, and am hoping to find more reasonable discussion on this side of the fence.

On fine-tuning, I find the case compelling. Our universe is indeed much more hospitable to life than would be expected from randomly chosen laws of physics. Barnes did a good job of explaining it.

I am a physicist, and while argument from authority is a logical fallacy, it is a quite reasonable inductive policy to take a person's field of study into account when deciding subjective credences about who might know more about a given topic. So there's that.

I see only one possible explanation for the fine-tuning: A multiverse, with different physical laws in different universes. Quantum mechanics and string theory (as well as, much more speculatively, mathematical Platonism) provide independent reasons to believe in a multiverse, so this seems to fit very well into a consistent picture. I don't see this as a problem for physics, but as a validation. If there had been a 'theory of everything' which predicted _unique_ physical laws, then fine tuning would be a problem for _that_ sort of theory.

One thing that is definitely not a possible explanation for the fine-tuning is a traditional monotheist-style god. Such a god would be far more fine-tuned than our universe is, because it's much easier (e.g. in terms of initial conditions) for intelligence to arise by evolution than to just exist without any process that would have led to it. So even if such a god showed up and said "Hey, I chose the laws of physics for you guys", that would just raise the question of where did he come from. I would tell him "You might think you're the only one of your kind, but obviously you are wrong. You must have been a product of evolution in your own universe."

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#20

Post by Gumby »

kinem wrote:Hello. I was recently hounded off of Pharyngula for allegedly being a concern/tone troll, and am hoping to find more reasonable discussion on this side of the fence.
Welcome, kinem. There's no concern trolling here - as a matter of fact it's damn near impossible to get banned from here. There's a lot of good discussions here, as well as a bunch of goofy dumbassery. It's all good.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#21

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Gumby wrote:
kinem wrote:Hello. I was recently hounded off of Pharyngula for allegedly being a concern/tone troll, and am hoping to find more reasonable discussion on this side of the fence.
Welcome, kinem. There's no concern trolling here - as a matter of fact it's damn near impossible to get banned from here. There's a lot of good discussions here, as well as a bunch of goofy dumbassery. It's all good.
For your information, "damn" is offensive to religious people, and "dumbassery" is ableist. Last warning before I PM Lsuoma and ask for the banhammer.

See Kinem? Nothing like Pharyngula. Welcome, fuck off, basket of links coming shortly.

And yes, Prof. D. Heddle is who he says he is.

rpguest

Re: Cosmological "fine-tuning" discussion thread

#22

Post by rpguest »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Gumby wrote:
kinem wrote:Hello. I was recently hounded off of Pharyngula for allegedly being a concern/tone troll, and am hoping to find more reasonable discussion on this side of the fence.
Welcome, kinem. There's no concern trolling here - as a matter of fact it's damn near impossible to get banned from here. There's a lot of good discussions here, as well as a bunch of goofy dumbassery. It's all good.
For your information, "damn" is offensive to religious people, and "dumbassery" is ableist. Last warning before I PM Lsuoma and ask for the banhammer.

See Kinem? Nothing like Pharyngula. Welcome, fuck off, basket of links coming shortly.

And yes, Prof. D. Heddle is who he says he is.
but i thought the facist tit banned all asia just because hes afraid of avicenna?

Locked