1. Fleabytes

Comment #145199 by Bluesman on March 17, 2008 at 11:07 am

Anyone know if it is going to be repeated?

You can get it here if you are in the uk ;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b0074t48.shtml?filter=txdate:15-03&filter=txslot:evening&start=1&scope=iplayerlast7days&version_pid=b006nj4t

2. Fleabytes

Comment #144462 by Bluesman on March 16, 2008 at 5:55 am

Wow I thought I was probably the only one whose heroes would include Richard Dawkins and Steve Vai.
Had to comment after reading the post from MPhil mentioning the Ultra Zone album as I started my day bouncing around the room to Voodoo Acid!

3. Fleabytes

Comment #136920 by Bluesman on March 2, 2008 at 3:09 am

As usual with these debates we have two sides with very different ideas of what constitutes evidence.
May I suggest that it would be helpful if we could agree a clear definition?
My own tentative suggestion would be "any statement that would be thought likely to sway the decision of the jury in a criminal court".
I am sure there are many here who could improve upon this but my point is if we had a definition which we could produce for any of these debates it may help to reduce some of the "white noise".
Of course if theists object to our definition they would be able to explain why and put forward their own suggestion.

4. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29912 by Bluesman on April 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Anyone posted this version here before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y&mode=related&search=

5. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11822 by Bluesman on December 7, 2006 at 1:18 pm

Liddle seems to be a very confused individual.
Does he really get paid to write this stuff?
Was the editor on his day off?