1. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #193995 by hungover on June 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

Were these differences present at birth? Jesus freaks might say that the abhorrant behaviour of these hell-bound homos disfigured their god-given brains...which were all wired up the same.

For example, its known that neural activity can shape brain structures. So, repeat the study now on 1000s of random kids then get them back in again 25 years down the line and compare gay V straight at birth too. I would fully expect the observed differences described above to be present in neonates (since the overall number of neurons and hence size of areas is largely regulated by gene expression, trophic factors, guidance molecules etc. ). If this turnied out to be the case then it would be a strong argument that Jesus makes homosexuals and should be held accountable.

2. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160359 by hungover on April 14, 2008 at 1:45 am

"aggressive secularism"?

How is writing a few books and appearing on a few talk shows, calmly arguing against faith, considered aggressive? By religious standards the "Dawkins army" is a pussycat.

3. In the name of the Father

Comment #51488 by hungover on June 23, 2007 at 5:33 am

Of course most of the greatest philosophers etc. were religious. They lived without the knowledge that we have descended from apes. Now that it is less taboo to disbelieve, I think you will find that the most qualified people to speak on the origins of life (scientists)do not believe in god.

Certainly our current knowledge is limited compared to the future but evolution is as likely to be overturned as gravity. Unless we hear a more plausible explanation of life then logically there is no room for god.

4. Quackbuster causes too much flak for university

Comment #51224 by hungover on June 22, 2007 at 2:02 am

I have no doubt that sometimes data is cherry picked for publication etc. However, if the pharma companies produce a drug it still has to show an effect in double blind placebo controlled trials doesnt it? Therefore if the drug is based on solid science it shoulf pass with flying colours.

5. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51122 by hungover on June 21, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Why I ought to club him and eat his bones.

6. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48911 by hungover on June 9, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I think that is a very important question and you have raised some interesting points but what I want to say is that we should be looking forwards not backwards, upwards not downwards and always twirling TWIRLING towards bullshit.