1151. Comment #57949 by Mark Taunton on July 22, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Folks,

Sorry to have raised expectations a little early. I currently have more pressing and important issues than the discussions here. But I hope to return later.

Mark.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1152. Comment #58015 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 2:15 am

No worries Mark, although I've probably fogotten what we were discussing :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1153. Comment #58016 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 2:44 am

Mark,

No worries...

Billy,

I think it was something to do with god and the bible?

Just trying to be helpful.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1154. Comment #58020 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 3:05 am

Billy-

it's all a bit hazy now, but I think Mark DOESN'T think that God's a Delusion. Maybe.

Anyway- perhaps we could occupy ourselves in the meantime by trying to work out what the hell Mark's Avatar is supposed to be.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1155. Comment #58021 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 3:09 am

Q,

A butterfly?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1156. Comment #58022 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 3:11 am

Now that you say that- I think it's a moth. Good eye Mr Lee- obviously with that torch you can see better.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1157. Comment #58023 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

Anyway- perhaps we could occupy ourselves in the meantime by trying to work out what the hell Mark's Avatar is supposed to be.

I think it may be an Owl Butterfly. This is an example of automimicry. When threatened it opens its wings and predators see two huge Owl like eyes staring at them. A wonderful example of adaptation through evolution - I'm sure Mark might disagree. There are some studies actually showing a change in pigeon rump pattern being driven by Falcons. It is thought a white patch infront of the tail confuses falcons as the pigeons roll to evade the attack. Paint normal ones white there and they are more likely to evade and survive attacks

Other Comments by BillySands

1158. Comment #58026 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 3:32 am

It'd be interesting to see a study of the effect that this has on falcons- ie the extent to which nature is now selecting for more focussed falcons that are less likely to be confused by rapid colour changes. Harder to study, I'm sure, but it would be interesting to see the effects on predator and prey.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1159. Comment #58030 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 3:45 am

Paint normal ones white there and they are more likely to evade and survive attacks

Maybe their survival chances would be better if some biology student didn't set a great bloody big falcon to attack them in the first place testing a theory that a bit of paint on the their arse could actually helped them – just a thought.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1160. Comment #58031 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 3:51 am

I have no sympathy for pigeons- far too many of the winged vermin where I live. Interestingly, there is a nesting pair of falcons in my town centre as well.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1161. Comment #58033 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 3:57 am

Go the falcons! I think this has only just started to happen, so I guess the falcons may catch up soon. It would be interesting to see how. We have pigeons and seagulls here. Apparently there is one for every person in Scotland. I'd like to know where I can collect my free one and feed it to the local fox

Other Comments by BillySands

1162. Comment #58034 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

In our town centre we have pillocks who feed the damn things every morning. They don't even fly off when you come near them, just waddle out of the way. You could probably scoop up a few into a big sack easily.

Any bird-lovers reading this will probably be appalled!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1163. Comment #58035 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

Why not put a great big red target on the pigeons arse... much more fun. BANG... BANG

We had a couple of wedgetailed eagles flying over our estate recently... not seen them for a while, maybe the pigeons ganged up on them. The bar-stools.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1164. Comment #58036 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 4:16 am

I'm formally calling for a Pigeon Purge. Whenever you see one, feel free to kick it, or at least glare in its general direction. It's time to take the fight to them. Pretend they're religious.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1165. Comment #58039 by bouwe on July 23, 2007 at 4:57 am

This thread is almost as long as the McGrath-Dawkins DG marathon. Can anybody point me to a post which summarizes what's gone on so far, or tell me where it starts to get interesting? Or do I have to start at page one and plough through the posts only to give up before I get there?

Other Comments by bouwe

1166. Comment #58040 by Philip1978 on July 23, 2007 at 5:20 am

Bouwe
I think it has been this so far in no particular order:

1) Bible Prophesy, is it accurate?
2) Bible Historical Inaccuracy
3) Did Jesus Exist?
4) The Great Deluge- Problems with Noah and the flood itself
5) Billy's Gay Fruit Fly collection and Lab coat
6) Pigeon Hate
7) Monty Python
8) Douglas Adams
Forgive me if I missed anything, please feel free to add!

Personally I dislike pigeons greatly, when evolution was handing out decent bird song and vision, pigeon was either last in line, drunk or out playing with the chickens. I hated being woken up at 5:00am with that ridiculous oooooo hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hoooo ooooooooooo hooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hoooo, them pooing on my parent's patio with reckless abandon and their inability to walk around and see anything without moving their heads back and forth.

Yay to Falcons!

Bouwe, one more thing, what....is your favourite colour?! :)
Cheers,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1167. Comment #58041 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 5:25 am

Bouwe, I think when Mark/Theo/any theist return, the topics will be Biblical prophecy/inaccuracies, problems with Flood/age of the universe, and apparently for today- pigeon hating. The colour thing was a vain attempt to overtake the DG thread, but the bleeder's come back now!

It seems that many people hate pigeons- good!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1168. Comment #58045 by bouwe on July 23, 2007 at 6:08 am

Thanks Philip1978 and Quetzalcoatl (so far -- by the time I post this there may be others).

If I change my mind about my favourite color in mid-sentence am I going to get thrown off into the Valley of What-ya-m-call-it? I am just adding to the post count, but I think we are cheating. You can never catch up to the DG marathon, especially if you go by word-count as opposed to posts. That DG is like McGrath's cyber alter ego, the word-count on his endless wafflling is truly astounding. Never has so many words been used to say so little. (Hey, a little like this post, right?)

Some of the stuff you mention might be worth checking out, but I find dealing with the Noah's Ark people just too ridiculous -- I'm over it. The DG brand of delusion is much more interesting and challanging. Did you know that the problem of consciousness is so intractable that science will never solve it? ("Yay!" says DG) and that saying "God did it!" makes the problem go away? Whoopeeee.. it all makes sesne!!! No more problems, just clap hands and sing praise to Jesus!!

Sound familiar? Maybe not so different after all.

Other Comments by bouwe

1169. Comment #58048 by Quetzalcoatl on July 23, 2007 at 6:21 am

No, you'll only get thrown into the Room of Eternal Torments (also known as Billy's Lab) if you select the wrong colour.

I prefer not to think of it as cheating, just passing some time. And our discussions are fairly interesting, for the most part.

Did you know that the problem of consciousness is so intractable that science will never solve it?

I had heard that! It just reminds me of all those other things that science could never do- put a man on the moon, read the human genetic code, travel faster than sound. Oh, wait...

That's what irritates me a great deal about DG's arguments, for all that they are detailed and structured. It rests fundamentally on "we don't know this, so God must be responsible". The problem is, the things that fit into that category are shrinking fast, and so are the Gaps where God could be hiding.

As for the Ark stuff- it's actually fairly amusing!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1170. Comment #58072 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 9:22 am

Hi bouwe. It's a pretty diverse thread at the start. I guess the prophecy stuff changes a bit. There is some early stuff on whether it was prophesied that jesus would be born to a virgin in Bethlehem. Then Mark proposed that Deuteronomy 28 was a prophecy about Rome, and there is some stuff about the book of Daniel. Then there is some evolution stuff and some stuff about prophecies concerning the destruction of Tyre. I try to keep a way from the strangeness that is DG. The good thing about the prophecy stuff is that it is largely testable, and I think this is the best evidence that a theist could present. I hope Mark wont mind too much if I say it doesn't live up to its potential :-)

If I change my mind about my favourite color in mid-sentence am I going to get thrown off into the Valley of What-ya-m-call-it?

No, we use the bridge of Death on this thread. Those valley of What-ya-m-call-it folk are bastard splitters! We will not have them mentioned here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b4bGAoVR7g

Other Comments by BillySands

1171. Comment #58105 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Hi bouwe,

The story so far?

Do forget we did a little debate about SG ("spontaneous Generation?"– It was so long ago) Vs God thingy - however that was with Theo, and although he has promised to return, has not kept the promise.

I personally keep trying to ask the Age of the Universe, did get a mini-debate out of it but the debate moved back to prophecy. I will keep pushing this though.

The Noah flood debate was also being pushed by me, this is because Mark believes 100% in the bible, and I cannot see how the flood described could actually happen, and best of all – the flood is testable. I agree it is "just too ridiculous" but it is just one of the many things in the bible that I think fit this description.

However, we are still short of a theist at the moment, so we are just passing time.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1172. Comment #58112 by _J_ on July 23, 2007 at 2:31 pm

LeeC, 1325

However, we are still short of a theist at the moment, so we are just passing time.

Perhaps you should spar amongst yourselves. Practice your rationalistic kung fu, in preparation for launching casually devastating throat jabs when the next theist happens along.

I generally can't be bothered with the 'biblical evidence' debate. Probably all this has been said earlier in this thread (sorry, I haven't checked). But to give my tuppence-worth:

I agree that if the bible could be shown to have made unusually accurate prophecies, that would be impressive. Otherwise, it's just an old book and no matter how wonderful, it's not evidence for anything other than that the people who wrote it wanted their readers to believe them. The world's journalists pour out a bible's worth of (largely better-informed) words with the same intent every day.

No, if the bible really was good evidence for god, I'm pretty sure someone would have pointed out how and where by now. There're enough people (like David Robertson) who automatically point to the bible as their evidential keystone, yet fail to say anything more substantial in explanation than 'it's so beautiful' or 'it's so complex', to convince me that they don't have a case. If I accepted that sort of woolly eulogizing as evidence, I'd be worshiping Shakespeare.

One thing I do find interesting, though, is how the bible's attempts to deal with the evidence problem tend to backfire. If you get beyond a simplistic 'I'll just accept what the author wants me to believe' frame of mind and inspect the logic underlying the stories, it often performs a neat pirouette and kicks a stiletto heel back into the author's apparent intent.

The testimony to Moses episode is a good example. This point's already in a post waiting to clear at the Free Church site. So I can lazily cut and paste!

It's interesting that the evidence we are to believe that god actually chose to give Moses was of the sort that does not survive until today. The tablets crumbled or were lost. They are also of the sort that, were they to reappear today, could easily have been faked by a man with chisel. They are also, interestingly, limited to the prior experience of the people that wrote the whole biblical account. I mean, if someone were (hypothetically) just to have made the story up, they could easily imagine god providing his word on stone tablets. Stone, inscriptions, mountains and thunder were all things that people of that time knew and understood. But imagine if the bible gave the following account:

Moses descended from the mountain atop a horse of metal that galloped on black wheels and thundered as it ran. He carried a slab, filled with the majesty of the LORD and made of material unknown to man. He set the slab upon the earth, before the mountain, and prayed before it, laying his hand atop its shiny surface. Immediately, the face of the LORD appeared brightly on the mountain side and spoke his Testimony to the tribe of Israel. Moses could repeat the LORD's Testimony at any time by praying before the slab and touching its top.

This would be much more impressive, because we understand that the people who were about at the time of the bible had no experience of motorbikes and audiovisual projectors. They simply couldn't have imagined this stuff for themselves. Whereas the actual passage in the bible could have been invented by anyone capable of stringing sentences together. The result is rather like damning with faint praise.

My favourite example, though, is the 'Doubting Thomas' story. Here we find that even Jesus' closest followers couldn't accept the resurrection. Even if you knew him personally and were sold on his miraculous powers, you wouldn't buy it. Jesus had to put in a personal show.

If you're blankly lapping up what John (or whoever actually wrote this nonsense) is asking you to believe, I suppose you're supposed to say 'Oh, well, Thomas got the evidence, so we don't need it'. Someone I challenged on this point has bought it hook line and sinker - they said: 'How much more blessed are we, then, for not needing evidence?'. Sure. Save it for the judge.

If you lay aside the emotional blackmail and special pleading, what you're left with is a story that says that even if you had immeasurably more reason to believe than anyone living today has - if you knew Jesus and had experienced Biblical events first-hand - you still wouldn't be in a position to rationally accept the 'Good News' without a serious smack in the face with the wet fish of cold, scaly evidence.

So, kids at home, reading your bible: wake up to the logic of the text. You've no reason to believe this stuff and the writers know it. They're just hoping you'll fall for their superficial feats of narrative and argumentative legerdemain and that, by the time you pause to analyse anything, you'll be so sold into psychological dependency on the story being true that you'll instinctively resist anything that indicates the shoddy bullshittery that the whole myth rests upon. Even when it's staring you in the face.

Back on the kung fu metaphor: it seems to me that, when making its own claims for 'evidence', the bible repeatedly overstretches and leaves itself wide open for a nice biu sau to the windpipe.

Just my opinion. Have fun hitting each other nicely.

Other Comments by _J_

1173. Comment #58126 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Hi J,
Your kung fu is good, but is no match for my fu kyu tue jimmy :-)
Your post reminds me a bit of a discussion I had at lunch time and a post I made on my old ministers blog the otherday I'll post it below for anyone bothered. I would be interested on peoples thoughts on the verses concerning proof. Is Dave Robertson still about then? I need to resist following your debate with him or I'll get sucked in.

Hi guys, I was just settling down with my cup of horlicks and there are so many responses. I will try and deal with them generally, so I hope I don't miss anything out. I don't buy the argument that god doesn't reveal himself because we would chose not to follow. I think you will find that many people would follow him if given enough evidence. The bible tells us that god knows your heart any way (eg 1 sam 16:7), so that argument is refuted by the bible. I think it would be far more moral to provide evidence, and since he can read our hearts, let us decide what to do with that knowledge. I have anther problem with that argument. I presume you mean follow as in love him. However, read Deuteronomy 28, or god's command to kill your family if they tempt you to worship other gods (deut 13:6:11) God clearly wants obedience through fear (deut 13:11: " Then all Israel will hear about it and be afraid, such wickedness will never again be done amongst you")

I also don't buy the people need to worship god, or need him in their lives. I don't feel that need, and the atheists who hold on to their lack of belief in fox holes (and there are many) certainly don't. Many Atheists lead fulfilled lives – we don't need to believe in god – that does not mean we would not follow him if he revealed himself (although, I might have a problem worshiping his nasty side)

It seems folk are saying that you can't rule out the super natural – but we have no evidence for it, and there is an attempt to equate this with naturalism. However, I have experience of the physical world. I can make reliable predictions. I have not sat on every chair on the world, but through experience and observing the behaviour of other chair – people interactions, I can be 99.9999% sure that every thime I sit on one, it will take my weight – and if it doesn't, I can make predictions about why it didn't – the chair was old, I've put on weight etc. This all rely on REASONABLE assumptions that are testable. Belief in the supernatural without any evidence is not reasonable. It also suffers from the same logical flaws as Pascal's wager (if god is not real and you believe, you have not lost anything, but if he is real…….) This line of reasoning then holds true for the existence of Zeus, fairies and Allah – what if they are real? – well we can all laugh about it together in hell (incidentally, the wager is unbiblical – ignoring the verses above – we are told elsewhere that god only wants those who love him). If the supernatural is false, then I have wasted my only shot at existence following a lie.
The argument of not being able to disprove a negative is not a reason to believe, because we then have to consider flying spaghetti monsters as being real too – Incidentally Paul we could point the Hubble telescope at the lunar landing sites and look for flags and foot prints (I've actually met someone who claims to have walked on the moon (Jim Irwin) but more on witness testimony later) We could exhume who ever is buried in Elvis's grave and perform some micro satellite DNA analysis, and compare it with his wife daughter and parents, we could all take a trip to Transylvania – all these provide a good rational case one way or the other, and Bruce may want to think what evidence he needs to prove I'm not Billy. There are no such cases for the supernatural.
What then does the bible say about it then? Well, it is full of super natural miracles, so we can expect to see these today (John 14:12 says anyone who comes after Jesus will be able to do the same thing) John (20:31) tells us that his gospel was written to provide evidence of the supernatural nature of Jesus. We are also told that the supernatural phenomenon of prophecy is open to scrutiny (1 Thess 5:20-21)
Does the bible say that we can expect evidence? Yes, it does. Remember Thomas (Jn 20:24-28) required proof (an example of eyewitness account not being good enough for him) Despite the usual Christian response of don't test god, we are told that Jesus provides the required proof. Asking for evidence in the form of a miracle is not prohibited either. There is the story of the father asking that his possessed son be healed. He says "I do believe, help my unbelief" (Mk 9:24), and Jesus obliges. So, the bible effectively tells us that the Christian view of the supernatural can be tested. Biz, you remind me of the contest on Mt Carmel (1 kings 18 ) where god provides proof too – however, I think that when we don't convert the excuse will be that we didn't want to follow god, and as I said, that is a false assumption.
It's late, but lets briefly deal with the evidence for Jesus: I am not convinced that there is sufficient reliable historical evidence for the existence of Jesus – but that doesn't mean I necessarily reject the possibility that a Jesus may have lived. All extra biblical sources are not contemporary and usually only mention the existence of Christians. One notable exception is the testamonium flavium (the Josephus one - he lived decades after Jesus). This is partially – if not wholly fabricated (even according to Christians). Evidence includes the fact that Josephus – a devout Jew blasphemes by calling Jesus "the Christ" and the fact that it seems to break up the narrative of the surrounding paragraphs.
If Jesus did exist, then I still have serious doubts about the claims made about him. Not least because there is a strong feeling of recycled OT stories about him, and when one looks at the prophecies he is alleged to have fulfilled, they appear contrived and/or mistranslated.
Take the virgin birth prophecy for example: there are some serious obstacles of context that prohibit this verse from prophesying that a virgin will give birth to Jesus. The first problem is that God is telling King Ahaz to choose a sign that will prove to him that God will defeat an enemy (Is. 7:10). Ahaz refuses to choose one, so God chooses this one for him and says: "All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'" The child is so called, because it is a sign that God is with Ahaz. Ahaz ruled from 743-727 BC (Galil's the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah p1010). The birth of Jesus some 730 years later could hardly have been a sign to Ahaz. Verses 15-16 state that the child will have to learn right form wrong. This is incompatible with the idea of Jesus being "the spirit of God on Legs" as some evangelists put it.
It is a similar story with all messianic prophecies

There is also reasonable doubt about the identity of the authors and important differences between various gospel accounts – which become more fantastic the later they were written. Even the earliest dates attributed to the gospels puts the earliest at 45-50 CE some scholars even place them at as late as 100-200 CE. Then there is all the pagan gods who sound remarkably like Jesus. As Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." (First Apology, ch. Xxiv)
We also have other problems, Matt (1) and Luke (3) cant agree on the genealogy of Jesus, then there is the incompatibilities between matt and Luke of the date of the birth of Jesus http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html (and I haven,t even touched on the resurrection. That should at least explain some of the reasons why I reject Christianity.
Bruce. Have you ever seen a true miraculous answer to prayer? It seems you are saying that you pray for things and if it happens it is god's will, if it doesn't, it's not. Imagine we both have exams – you study and pray and pass. I study, don't pray and pass. Where is the hand of god? We both pass because we study. You would not pass an exam on quantum mechanics without studying. No matter how hard you pray (no doubt you will now tell me you are a physics prof). Have you ever seen an amputee grow a new limb? I'm always amazed with those who claim we are designed – crabs can grow new limbs and we cant.
I hope I've covered everything.

Think the discussion has ended, but folk can resurrect it if they want );-) http://gadgetvicar.typepad.com/gadgetvicar/2007/07/a-question-of-p.html They are not as unpleasant as David Robertson

Other Comments by BillySands

1174. Comment #58131 by _J_ on July 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Hi, Billy,

Wow - thanks for all that. I'm always impressed by your ability to reel off biblical references. I can't do this, so I tend to fall back on 'Look, if there's something really amazing in the bible, show me it'. Hasn't happened yet.

I don't know whether David's still about. He went on holiday weeks ago. After a couple of weeks, some posts I'd submitted finally appeared, alongside others. I then posted more, including one promising that it was my last. And I meant it. (Hasn't appeared yet, though, nor has David posted again himself.)

Also trying not to participate here. As of tomorrow, going to try not to even visit here. (Managed it yesterday!)

Anyway: your fu kyu tue jimmy is powerful indeed, sifu Billy.

Other Comments by _J_

1175. Comment #58214 by BillySands on July 24, 2007 at 3:31 am

Also trying not to participate here. As of tomorrow, going to try not to even visit here.

Tomorrow is always a good day to give something up :-)
One day you will be Sensei J and own your own Dojo of reason. I'm sure that come your next grading, Sensei Dawkins will award you the black leather bound God Delusion (1st chapter).

Other Comments by BillySands

1176. Comment #58216 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2007 at 3:36 am

Billy- without my copy of the Bible to hand, not much comment on the verses, but thank you for the interesting fact about crabs being able to regrow limbs! I had thought that limb regrowth was confined to newts and their ilk. You learn something new each day!

Are you not working in your Lab on producing clones that can regrow their own limbs? While amusing, I think the gay fruit fly experiments have run their course.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1177. Comment #58221 by BillySands on July 24, 2007 at 3:56 am

Hi Quetz,
We really are crap at regeneration. You can slice worm up (think you only need the first 9 segments to regenerate) and chop up starfish all you wand and they regenerate (think you only need a very small piece of the body). You can also liquidise a sponge and you will get mini sponges reforming from the bits.
A half human half crab could be a useful biological weapon - MWWWWHHAHAHAH. I've even seen a crab lose its leg then eat it. How's that for hard? This means my homo-crab soldiers will never go hungry in battle - and they can repair themselves.

Other Comments by BillySands

1178. Comment #58223 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2007 at 4:04 am

my homo-crab soldiers

What's with this prejudice against straight crabs? Don't you want an army that can reproduce itself, as well?

I notice that all these creatures (except for worms) are fairly aquatic, is that something to do with the ability to regenerate?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1179. Comment #58225 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hi Billy,

On the subject of martial arts, it made me think of the old days back in England, cos mine is the ancient Lancastrian art of ecky thump.

Obviously not as hard as the mutant crabs you seem to working on.


For old times, Here's a link... it's a long one.

Part I

Part II

Other Comments by LeeC

1180. Comment #58229 by BillySands on July 24, 2007 at 4:23 am

Ah good point about the crabs, I did mean homo as in our genus, but we dont want them having any unnecessary distractions now.

I think it seems more the case that the "simpler" the animal, the easier regeneration is. The only "higher animals i am aware of that can do this are salamanders, most fish can regenerate much of their fins (Some members of the genus Apteronotus can regenerate parts of its spinal chord) and some lizards can regenerate their tails. We contain the same genes that salamanders use to regenerate (eg Wnt BetaCatenin, FGF, Rb etc) but we cant regenerate.

Lee Excellent, I look forward to watching that later :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1181. Comment #58230 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2007 at 4:31 am

The problem there is that all the gay crabs would be distracted by each other. Much easier to kill their sex drives altogether.

I suppose that leaves open the possibility that scientists will one day be able to "switch on" the regeneration genes we all possess, and we might be able to regenerate. Of course by that time, cloning of limbs etc will probably have been sorted, so it'll be a bit superfluous.

Because I'm feeling left out- I actually DO martial arts, so there.

Jumping back to yesterday's conversation- what about falcons with frickin' laser beams on their heads?

(You wouldn't guess I'm at work now, would you?)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1182. Comment #58231 by BillySands on July 24, 2007 at 4:38 am

Quetz, I think I've found my army their unarmed combat instuctor - Do you want the job? Mind you, the unarmed bit goes against the idea of regeneration.

I used to do Shotokan and tried kick boxing later, but the way I was trained before was too ingrained in me (apparently it is a common problem when you try to transfer to a different stystem). What do you do?

Other Comments by BillySands

1183. Comment #58233 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 4:42 am

Hi Q,

I wish I had access to this thread at work... I would not get much work done, but think of the number of posts I could do!!!

Have to go, this time-zone rubbish is not good for small talk.

See ya

Lee

PS

Like the lasers...

Other Comments by LeeC

1184. Comment #58234 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2007 at 4:43 am

I do Taekwondo, I only started about seven months ago but it's going pretty well. I've heard it mentioned about the whole ingraining problem. Even karate, which is fairly similar to TKD, has different positioning which you have to "unlearn".

I'd be happy to instruct your crab army, as soon as they're finished growing. With all those extra legs, positioning of the feet will be really important. However some weaponry for the crabs might be in order. How about crab-portable Gatling cannons?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1185. Comment #58235 by Philip1978 on July 24, 2007 at 4:45 am

I am from the south of England, my martial art is Tea-Fu, powerful and quick it is! Plus has many forms depending on the time of day (Breakfast, Afternoon etc) or other powerful forms such as Assam and Earl Grey!

Re-generation of limbs is incredible, Billy, why are we so crap at re-generation, is it highly improbable with our DNA or something?

I can't understand the bible and how people keep interpreting it in different ways to justify "faith" in their god as opposed to another as being plausible. I have posed this question to several of the theists on this site and have usually got the same answer along the lines of "but my god is different...". I think what I want from the bible as Mark has suggested is to use it as a historical document since we have very little to show for that period of time. From what I have seen so far from writers such as Josephus's or Tacitus's it is highly interesting comparing their versions with the bible authors. Sadly, as Billy has shown, parts have been tampered with by future writers. As I posted before I have read things like Homer's Iliad and found it to be full of holes but possibly showing the way of life from that time period. Evidence is so sketchy and minimal but the story is much better than reality!!

Tally Ho, I am off to study more advanced Tea-Fu moves,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1186. Comment #58239 by J.C. Samuelson on July 24, 2007 at 5:30 am

Hi guys,

Wow! This thread remains a lively one, eh? All this talk of martial arts has my testosterone boiling (but not painfully so). I used to study TKD and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, but gave up TKD when I realized I'd never be Jet Li (made it to brown belt, though), and the only BJJ school raised their rates and changed their class times. Now, I just study th3 d34DLy Wang Fu. I'm an 80th-degree black belt in that. Only men are physically capable of doing Wang Fu, but the women love it. >:D

Philip,

You mentioned how the Iliad may reveal things about the way of life from that period. That partly describes my own view of the Bible. There are parts that are also quite stirring or poetic, particularly Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. The Psalms (such as the 23rd - Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow...), and some of the Proverbs are rather good too. And, although there are historical inconsistencies, copy errors, and so forth, some of the history matches well with other records, giving a human side (though a rather disturbing one, at times) to history that is sometimes lacking in others of the period. The Babylonian Chronicles, for example, focus on what such-and-such king did, but seems short on insights into the culture (with some exceptions, of course).

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and so forth flesh out some of the historical events happening in and around the Roman Empire, to include Judea, so they make for a good contrast against the New Testament. Unfortunately, they do virtually nothing to confirm the Gospels. I might add that they also do not necessarily disconfirm them either, because they are mostly silent on the topic of Jesus, and where he is mentioned there is some dispute as to the validity of the text. Even were they not in dispute, however, they give no details as to the events surrounding his life. Jesus himself was evidently not so remarkable as to attract the attention of the Roman movers and shakers of the day.

Billy,

I just noticed you left a comment on my not-so-very-well-maintained blog. I was pleasantly surprised you found it. I'm trying to get back on track with dropping posts, and always have something on the burner. Unfortunately, the demands of daily life, commenting here and elsewhere, and tons of email leave little room for writing what I'd like. Incidentally, I've temporarily abandoned the topic of the post you commented on. The project was poorly planned and badly in need of an outline and a re-write.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks!

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1187. Comment #58244 by Philip1978 on July 24, 2007 at 6:02 am

JC
I agree with you, one of the reasons I love the Iliad and the Oddessey is because of the poetry, I think one thing that amused me about it is even after a most bloody and gratuitous battle the day before the sun rises "rosy fingered" the next morning!

I dont suppose you could recommend any books on the Wromans (no, Roman... STWIKE HIM!) of that period, I am going to read more about it one day and any assistance would be welcomed! I have learned a little here and there about the spread of Judaism and Christianity throughout the Wroman empire in face of the one god religion(whose name escapes me at this point of typing!). I know that Constantine had a very marked effect upon the spread of Christianity when he came to power but my knowledge of stuff beforehand is still very sketchy. I have studied the Goon Show, but I think their interpretation of the Histories of Pliny the Elder are a little off the scale! hehehehe!

Cheers,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1188. Comment #58271 by BillySands on July 24, 2007 at 8:01 am

Quetz, Not sure why we are so crap at regenerating. It seems some level of de-differentiation is involved. I guess this may be the problem. We may silence these genes through morestable means. I'll look into it somethime for you.
JC I thought I had seen your avatar before. My first guess was that there may have been another more) famous JC Samuelson, so I googled it and found your blog. One thing that always comes through in your posts is your genuine desire to understand the truth. It looks like your deconvertion phase was not too dissimilar to mine, although it is suprising how similar it is to other peoples too.

Philip Do you serve your tea with one or two lumps of rational vengence?

Other Comments by BillySands

1189. Comment #58273 by Quetzalcoatl on July 24, 2007 at 8:06 am

I'll look into it sometime for you

Thanks Billy, much obliged. Although stuff like this has little to do with my day job, I still like to learn as much as I can about as much as I can.

Do you have a link to JC's blog?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1190. Comment #58276 by Philip1978 on July 24, 2007 at 8:14 am

Billy,
One lump these days, used to be 2 in my youth, but I found I can issue rational vengeance with less effort these days, such are the wonders of the training!

Other Comments by Philip1978

1191. Comment #58277 by BillySands on July 24, 2007 at 8:17 am

Hi Quetz http://skepticrat.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by BillySands

1192. Comment #58468 by Quetzalcoatl on July 25, 2007 at 1:48 am

Billy- thanks for the link. I had found the blog, but wasn't sure if it was the right one, as the JC pictured there doesn't look like the avatar on this site!

In other news, I now have four worshippers. The Pope is quaking in his high heels.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1193. Comment #58473 by Quetzalcoatl on July 25, 2007 at 2:02 am

To Billy and anyone else who is interested-

over on the "Secular Skeptic" blog, there was a recent post about a debate with Jason Rennie, he of the SciPhi show from the "Darwin or Design" thread. I was going to start e-mailing him, but decided to hold off when I found out that the "results" of another debate would be reported on soon. Worth reading, if only for what Jason considers "evidence" for Intelligent Design.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1194. Comment #58508 by LeeC on July 25, 2007 at 4:28 am

Thanks Billy,

So that is what JC looks like?

This thread has aged him a bit.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1195. Comment #58509 by BillySands on July 25, 2007 at 4:28 am

Cheers Quetz,
It appears that Jason has no evidence. I really dont get how you get from things taking billions of years to that's what a designer does. Occasionally designists bring up something that is challenging, like the bacterial flagellum or antiboby generation. These are not arguements for a designer, but arguements from ignorance. However, these things do make folk look more closely at the relationships between components of these systems, and we actually get a better understanding of how these things actually evolved. The biggest problem I see for thoe who want to claim design is that their arguements come from current ignorance in the area (which is later explained), or even worse (and a crime Behe is very guilty of) personal ignorance. Like lee says, skulls wih names inside would be hard to refute.

Philip (this would have sounded witty and spontaneous yesterday) Are you then a practicioner of Tai Fu?

Other Comments by BillySands

1196. Comment #58510 by Quetzalcoatl on July 25, 2007 at 4:31 am

Billy- perhaps Phillip learned from the great master Tet Lee?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1197. Comment #58512 by BillySands on July 25, 2007 at 4:34 am

Quetz,
Or even BREWce Tea

I just thought, a short DNA sequence inscribed on skulls would do too

Other Comments by BillySands

1198. Comment #58514 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 4:39 am

Quetzalcoatl, 1350 and BillySands, 1351

You may both be right - but something in his style makes me suspect he has also been taking tips from Pi Ji.

Other Comments by _J_

1199. Comment #58515 by Quetzalcoatl on July 25, 2007 at 4:41 am

Oh, we are hilarious.

Why bother with DNA? God could just as easily put: "Of course I'm real, you idiot".

I found Rennie's assertion that a process taking millions and millions of years is exactly how a Designer would do things to be pretty funny. You might as well just call it evolution and have done with it.

On another note- I now have five people who have pledged their allegiance to me. LeeC, JC, interested in becoming part of the club? Come on, all the cool kids are doing it.....

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1200. Comment #58521 by Philip1978 on July 25, 2007 at 4:57 am

Last one, I have learned from many masters, esp the ones you mentioned, you did however miss out one the Grand Masters Twii Ning!

Cool we reached thread page 28!

I wholly recommend worshipping Quetz, he is a great deity, plus Billy the Prophet does much good with His one and only Lab coat! Its a good religion and well worth the time and effort, plus the benefit of your god actually communicating with you so that no confusion is made over what He requires of you! Quetz and Billy are actually real, their birth places can be confirmed and they have much wisdom and knowledge, beat that Yahweh and Jesus!

Other Comments by Philip1978