psikeyhackr - 10 April 2012 02:11 PM

You said that reading his books is superior to actual science

Where did I say that?

Okay, you didn’t say it exactly like that, but you did imply it. What else does “[Sawyer’s books] cover astronomy, orbital mechanics, evolution and psychology in fewer pages than textbooks” mean? If I can get the same information in less time, the source where I can get it from is superior.

And I don’t think I would have a problem with Sawyer saying whatever he wants (I am not going to read it anyways), but I do have a problem when you say that his books can teach anyone about evolution.

George - 10 April 2012 03:18 PM

And I don’t think I would have a problem with Sawyer saying whatever he wants (I am not going to read it anyways), but I do have a problem when you say that his books can teach anyone about evolution.

I suppose you can’t figure out the relevance of the title either.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/466384.Fossil_Hunter

psik

No, I can’t figure it out. I iz stoopit. Don’t forget, I am not a member of MENSA.

traveler - 10 April 2012 03:08 PM

psikeyhackr - 10 April 2012 02:11 PM

But I have no comprehension of your projection of stupidity about what I say.

psik

That just comes naturally for you, doesn’t it? 

In case you didn’t notice, I provided a response to the OP.  I did not try to criticise anybody or their response.

It is not my fault that an SF book I read years ago is centered around the ideas of evolution and my critic doesn’t know a thing about it.  It is not my fault that he chooses to advertise his ignorance and behave as though there is something wrong with not being in his state.  I don’t see how his quote from Calculating God has ANYTHING to do with what I wrote.  Of course I am not surprised by his defender either.

Here is something about the actual book I mentioned.

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

And I did point out that his daughters sounded too young for this but by telling him about the books he will know about them to check them out if he so desires.  So all I did was provide him with some information to increase his options.

EXCUUUUSE MEEE!

psik

psikeyhackr - 10 April 2012 08:14 PM

traveler - 10 April 2012 03:08 PM

psikeyhackr - 10 April 2012 02:11 PM

But I have no comprehension of your projection of stupidity about what I say.

psik

That just comes naturally for you, doesn’t it? 

In case you didn’t notice, I provided a response to the OP.  I did not try to criticise anybody or their response.

 

I didn’t say what came naturally. Why do you say you aren’t trying to criticise (sic) anybody or their response? I just quoted you. You are the one who now interprets what you said as criticizing.

George - 10 April 2012 03:18 PM

psikeyhackr - 10 April 2012 02:11 PM

You said that reading his books is superior to actual science

Where did I say that?

Okay, you didn’t say it exactly like that, but you did imply it. What else does “[Sawyer’s books] cover astronomy, orbital mechanics, evolution and psychology in fewer pages than textbooks” mean? If I can get the same information in less time, the source where I can get it from is superior.

And I don’t think I would have a problem with Sawyer saying whatever he wants (I am not going to read it anyways), but I do have a problem when you say that his books can teach anyone about evolution.

I didn’t say “Sawyer’s books” I said:

Try the Far-Seer series by Robert J. Sawyer.

That consists of THREE BOOKS and nothing else by him.

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

It is not my fault that you make silly generalised inferences and then try to accuse me of implications.  I was specific in what books I was referring to.

psik

Well, you were saying that SF is as good (if not better) as actual science. I don’t agree with it. Not sure what else to add here.

Here are some videos since your daughters are not up to reading speed yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHHv9XdN_e4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uum9Pl82Rg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRotORZVEYU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwwSCNtnu3Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDj42XRLHY

I kind of doubt they are at 4 and 6 year old level though.

psik