Lego me vs. Simpsons me!

Which of these is a more realistic depiction?

I think I prefer the Lego version, though it looks suspiciously like P.Z. Myers. Also, who has a shirt pocket on the right side?

The Simpsons version doesn’t give quite enough body shape options. I’ve got a belly, but not that much of a belly.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Lego me vs. Simpsons me!

  1. Peter says:

    I too liked the logo version. I’m also tried my avatar with Simpsons, all are predetermined one and there is no option to customize, so doesn’t look exactly what I’m…
    Questions For Comparing Policies

  2. Chris Doyle says:

    Good catch on the pocket! I’ve since updated the site to fix this glaring error.

  3. Lebon says:

    About Intelligent Design (ID)

    ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
    If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). The development of this kind of “draft ID” could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
    By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
    Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
    Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
    Benoit Lebon

  4. dave says:

    What do you ID zombies do, spam every post linking to PZ Myers?

    That’s the most idiotic bunch of tripe I’ve read in a long time. Try reading up on some science, then get back to me.

  5. Mark Hedden says:

    I’m not sure if this comment is worth leaving, a month later… I also vote for the Lego you… But the Simpsons one got me to thinking, I wish there were a way to see a Peanuts you!

  6. Eli says:

    Go with the lego. Lego is great.

  7. Zack Fields says:

    How can you ask me that when i don’t know what you look like? Do you have yellow skin, or a block body?

  8. Dave says:

    Look around the site. There are pictures of me.

Comments are closed.