551. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169938 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:26 am

Quetz: Just don't mention wormholes.

Yeah, I heard they're no longer a viable option. Which is a shame as I've recently bought stock in a company. Oh well.

I did think his idea was very much like Tiplers OPT. Not sure if he see's a role for intelligent robots in the generation of his god though.

552. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169934 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:21 am

Quetz:
if you're going to claim that you are my son, then you're going to have to tell everyone who the mother is. I don't "do" immaculate conceptions.

I'll get to it. I'm currently working out an explanation as to why I'm nearly 10 years older than you.
How do you feel about time travel and disco music? Perhaps we can ask Kardashel for his opinion on this.

553. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169931 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:16 am

Quetz: Yes, but I'm Chartered AND Certified, so that doesn't apply! Ha!

I thought holding both was akin to mixing matter and anti-matter, or crossing the streams. The ways of Quetz are truly mysterious.

By the way, I hope you don't mind, but I announce that I'm your son in the hopes of attracting some worshippers. You'll of course be the main object of praise, honest!

554. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169928 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:08 am

Paula: Oh no, please don't do that. Your posts have been great. Why leave us now?

I've been ill and unable to conduct my normal life, which tends to involve large quantities of cycling during my spare hours. EDIT: By ill I mean a simple viral infection - just enough to stop me from exercising. Damn you evolution!

I will try to join in more often, now the fear of airing my ideas in public has gone.

Oh, thank you very much for the compliment!

555. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169917 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 4:49 am

Geoff: I had hopes that txpiper was going to provide something more than the usual suspects, but he/she seems to have vanished...

It was looking promising until, after being shown his assertion that sedimentary rock supported a flood was flawed, he stuck his fingers in his ears and went "lalalalala".

556. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169910 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 4:33 am

BillySands: Best thing to do is gang up on them and not answer their shotgun style questions or allow them to move on to a different topic until they have answered the original question.

The constant requests for justification of the flood from Remnant did seem to give all of his other "arguments" a desperate quality, at least from my point of view.

Being new to posting, and likely to be going back to hiding after today, I'm not sure if I actually have other insight to add.

Brian English: Clearmind has knocked down evolution on the 'Interview with Dan Dennet' thread. I guess that's it guys.

Damn! Why didn't any of you tell me? All the time reading, which could have been spent on other activities.

Epeeist: Clearmind/Wooter is a wind-up. Look at the change in vocabulary and grammar from post to post.

Can someone intentionally post that badly though? Perhaps running something through a translater a few times, and then adding some personal flair to the result. I don't think I could manage it from scratch.

557. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169886 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:38 am

Steve Zara: Funny how so many people say Christianity is about humility.

I thought it refered to their humility as compared with the arrogant, self centred, self rightious character Yahweh in their book. In comparison most christians are quite humble

558. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169847 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 12:33 am

Quine, we were discussing whether the actions of yahweh in various works of fiction would be considered moral to people today. I thought that was obvious, but as Remnant seems to think that quoting the bible implies a belief in the existence of yahweh, it is perhaps easy to misinterpret (not that I think you did).

The distinction between reality and fiction should be stressed more frequently.

EDIT:
Supporting evidence for the flood hypothesis?

559. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169837 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 11:37 pm

MPhil: ...and now we wait for the "The standards of men are not the standards of God"-comment, the "You can't judge God, least of all by human standards"-comment...

If Yahweh wrote the moral laws on our hearts, and these laws derive from Yahweh's very nature, I don't understand why we shouldn't expect Yahweh to act according to his nature.

MPhil: And aside from that, interestingly, we can judge God's behaviour to be kind and loving by our standards - and no one objects... but not to be injust and incredibly cruel by any standard?

Does it reek of inconsistency? I think it does.

Nice

560. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169826 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Stryer, would you prefer they stuck to something like:
"I believe in God because it makes me feel good/special."

561. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169819 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 10:32 pm

MaxD: Jesus died for you seasons....for a few days.

Jesus died for your sins...He gave up a whole long weekend!

Hopefully, giving up my long weekend to post here will elicit some worshippers. Any takers? How about if I say I'm Quetz's son? The real mystery then would be, how can I be older than my father?
And thus a new religion is born

562. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169565 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 9:56 am

MaxD: I can't help but one more....does it trouble you at all that there isn't a shread of historical evidence for this story?
It would bug the hell out of me.

The bible says it's all the evidence he'll ever need. For some reason that is actually good enough for him.

563. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169562 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 9:54 am

I really should have gone to bed.

txpiper: My original comment was in response to the claim that there is no geological evidence for a planet-wide flood event. Such a statement, in view of the amounts and distribution of the sediments, is rather dismissive in my view. One may argue about the interpretation of the evidence, but you can't say that it isn't there.

Right. You provided a statement concerning sedimentary rocks supporting flood geology. Your statement was shown to be false. You did not show the arguments against your statement to be false, or introduce further evidence to shore up your argument. Without doing either of those two things, your flood hypothesis is unsupported by the evidence you've brought to bear.

txpiper: As to the fossils, they only seem to complicate the conventional views which require many small or large scale flood events over long periods of time. A single species being found in a particular strata on multiple continents, seems too uniform for this to have been the case.

You have not attempted to reconcile the fossil record with you flood hypothesis. The fossil record is sorted by "age" of fossil. With fossilised entities of the same species foudn within the same age of rock. You don't find TRex fossils in the same layer of rock as a wooly mammoth.
If the flood hypothesis is to be accepted, you have to explain why you do not find the equivilent of a Trex and a wooly mammoth in the same layer of rock. You have not done this as yet.
As such, your flood hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.

If you continue to assert that the "evidence" is there, after your evidence has been shown to not be there, you will unfortunately invite ridicule, as you'll be behaving in an irrational manner.
Either add new arguments for you hypothesis, argue against the statements against your hypothesis, or introduce new evidence to support your hypothesis.
Also, if, after having your arguments being picked apart, you consistently jump to a different tack - say jumping from sedimentary rocks to the fossil record as you've done, you'll also be behaving irrationally and invite ridicule.

Basically, say why the flaws Billy, Steve, mesomodel etc have pointed out in your arguments are not flaws, or concede your position.
billy, Steve mesomodel etc will be playing by the same rules. If they can't find a flaw in your argument, they will need to conceed.

(unless of course I'm talking out my shiny metal ass)

Now I'm definitely going to bed. I hope someone can wring a concession, or at least an "I don't know" out of someone else by the time I drag myself back here. But I don't expect it to happen.

564. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169549 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 9:17 am

txpiper, thanks for taking some small time to put forward an argument, and begin following it up.

Remnant, if you're still reading, With your baseless assertions and self proclaimed mastery of science logic and biblical studies, all of which you were shown to be in complete ignorance of. Your kids would be ashamed, as should you be.

Romans 1:22 (Weymouth New Testament)
While boasting of their wisdom they became utter fools

2 am and time for bed. Night all!

565. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169540 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 9:04 am

RevDark: They don't feel the need to, 6,000 years isn't long enough to worry about such things.

You're wrong, because AiG says different, nerr! :-)
from the link: "At its peak, this runaway instability allows the subduction rates of the plates to reach amazing speeds of feet-per-second."

According to AiG, the continents were cruising apart at walking pace.

566. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169537 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:58 am

BillySands: How do YECs explain continental drift?

Ask and ye shal receive:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

Seems like it's similar to normal tectonics, but wrong.

567. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169533 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:51 am

BillySands: However, they only apear in rocks consistently dated to the last 5 million years of the cretatious - and always below the Iridium layer of the K/T impact

Thanks Billy.
I knew there was a way to say it and make sense at the same time.

568. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169530 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:44 am

MPhil: And right now someone is arguing that there is extremely good geological evidence for a massive global flood a la Noah. Breathtaking.

At least he's being civil about it. Somewhat unexpected.

569. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169528 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:37 am

txpiper: But the fossils of T-Rex, for instance, have been found many thousands of miles apart. Long periods of time might help with your idea, but wide distribution of the fossils does not.

T-rex had legs you know. They could walk. - edit: sorry if that's a bit curt, txpiper. I'm currently rather sleep deprived
I may be wrong here, but geographical distance is not quite as important as vertical distance, within the geological column. Especially when the places the T-Rex was found, even separated by thousands of miles, are in the same vertical region - which they are.

Hey this is great, the conversation is moving along. Thanks txpiper.

Your turn again.

570. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169524 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:31 am

Remnant: Conservatives are symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth.
Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

So conservatives are elephants, or Rhino's, or we'll even give you Tigers.
For liberals, can we take rabbits and hares?
Excellent.
Conservatives are large and powerful, but also on the endangered list, and need to be taken care of else they'll go extinct.
Liberals on the other hand would seem to be present on most continents, and numbering in the millions or billions world wide

Remnant, care to help txpiper on that flood thing?

571. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169520 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:24 am

It seems txpiper is taking up the explanation of the flood hypothesis.
Steve has shown flaws in your statement regarding sedimentary rock. EDIT: I see mesomodel has strengthened Steve's objections.
It's now your turn to either show how Steve is wrong, present further evidence to support your hypothesis, or accept that your hypothesis is false.

I think that's how these things work.

You could also read epeeist's post here for some pointers
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page95#169390

572. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169509 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 8:08 am

"However in the 1950's another British expedition to the site, this time led by Kathleen Kenyon showed that Gerstang's interpretation of the pottery evidence had been wrong. She showed conclusively that the walls and the city were destroyed almost a thousand years earlier, in 2,300 BC! Kenyon's interpretation of the pottery evidence is today accepted by all archaeologists as the correct one. Thus, the site excavated by Gerstang could not have been contemporaneous with Joshua. Could there have been another wall, built upon the old damaged ones? The answer is no. For the period between 1400 and 1300 BC, Kenyon's team found only one little building (dated to 1320 BC) and a few reused old tombs. After 1300 BC, Jericho was not even settled at all. Thus, Joshua's men would have found either a few small huts or nothing at all in Jericho. They would certainly not have found a walled and fortified city. Therefore, one of the most important event in the Joshua narrative is fictitious. [2]"
From http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/joshua.html

Remnant try to stop the snide remarks for a moment, if you can manage it.
Why are you refusing to answer any questions regarding the flood?
Do you think you've already answered sufficiently?

573. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169498 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 am

Remnant: Oh by the way. The videos forget to tell us where the first bouncing blocks came from.

Are you saying you're unable to take in new information? You've been informed that the beginning of life (ie, the first bouncing blocks) is Abiogenesis. Does being a spirit man somehow rob you of your ability to learn? Does it remove original sin, therefore putting you in a state prior to the gaining of wisdom by Adam & Eve ie. you become child like and ignorant?


So, flood geology covered yet?

574. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169495 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 7:54 am

Remnant, please logically explain how our morals are derived from the nature of Yahweh, and yet he goes against that nature, by instituting genocide, murdering, etc etc?

Anything about the flood as yet?

575. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169412 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 3:18 am

lievemebe: Without the authority of the bible or the holy spirit, I commend you to the freedom and beauty of science. Go forth into a sinless world of theory based on evidence.

To be fair, the holy spirit would have to exist to have any authority. And the bible is simply a collection of books. Surely it's us who give the books their powers, as inanimate objects, they have no intrinsic authority.
Good thing a sinless world in no way implies "an anything goes" world, as that would go against the way we behave in general - I'd find myself in trouble in pretty short order. The only thing I can think that a sinless world inplies is that all the stupid stuff which was a sin against the lord, like picking my nose on a tuesday, is no longer a sin, becasue there is no lord.
Great!

576. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169400 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 1:42 am

lievemebe: The co-evolution of grapes and yeast is miraculous (for a creationist) and wonderous (for an atheist) but "a little miraculous" is a category mistake.

I'm following along here, but this I don't understand. If shellfish are not to be eaten, and yet all animals and plants were created for man (with some miscellaneous items being there for other animals and plants, so that we can use them), why did God, in her infinite wisdom, simply inform us of the shit in the head of a shellfish and how to prepare it, or not create it at all? I've not been able to find the answers to this in my bible (KJV), and the holy spirit has not been forthcoming. Should I continue praying to the Lord for a resolution to this problem?
Are you also suggesting that swine, that seemingly most detestable of beasts would fall into a similar category as shell fish - requires some knowledge to prepare or store so as not to cause illness? Why did god give other peoples of the earth the knowledge on how to domestic and use swine as a food source, and yet kept it a secret from his chosen people?
Once again the bible and the holy spirit have been of no assistance, though I suspect swine are inherently evil beasts. this would explain the consumption by other cultures - to increase their sin.

577. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169392 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 12:46 am

Quine, those vids are great. Must bookmark.
Thankyou hopeful.

Oh, if we're back to it I guess I must follow along

Remnant: Flood?
TheTrash: ID?

578. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169388 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 12:19 am

lievemebe: For the last 2000 years most of the attention has centred on the conversion of water into wine rather than turning oceans into holy water.

Does turning water into urine count as a miracle? I mean, there are people who claim it has health benefits, so it's almost a healing miracle.
If so, I've been doing the miraculous for years.

lievemebe: Who knows what undesirable effects holy sea water would have on the marine ecology. It is far too risky.

Doesn't the bible say that only shellfish are unclean (of things in the ocean). Unclean here obviously means in league with the Adversary and evil. Could the oceans not manage without shellfish. They are an abomination to the lord after all. I don't see why he bothered to create them in the first place. And don't get me started on swine...

As for miraculous winemaking, there has only been once instance of this and it was not accomplished with sea water. So far winemakers have only been able to tap into photosynthesis and fermentation using ordinary water.

If you look at the process of evolution from a simple self replicator all the way to grape vines and yeast, surely that counts as a little miraculous? Well, not miraculous, because there is none of that religious context crap, and it actually happened. It's pretty awesome though :-)

EDIT: The wine/urine thing may have brought the tone of the thread down. I blame a lack of belief in the good lord for my transgression. Quetz be praised!

579. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169369 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 10:25 pm

I know you're intending this for the rev. Hope he doesn't mind if I have a run at it, as inept as the attempt is likely to be.

clearmind: My mother passed away and yours too, i guess. I see her sometimes in my dreams. Now my question is that if you see your mother in your dream and says "the truth is that God exists, please reverend believe in God." What would you do? This is another sincere question of mine.
And how do you interpret dreams?

I'd say it was a dream, walk it off, and put it down to spending too much time rummaging around in the delusional stuff you and others spout.
I interpret dreams as the actions of my mind while I'm sleeping.
How do you interpret dreams?
If your mother appeared to you, and said "Allah is real, please clearmind believe in Allah", what would you do?
And how do you interpret dreams?
Do you ascribe supernatural character to them, such as messages from God? If so, are all of your dreams messages from God, even the naughty ones you occasionally have? If not, how do you tell the difference? Do you only get "God" dreams after you've stopped taking your meds for a period of time?
These are sincere questions I ask you.

580. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169358 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Podaar: P.S. ...the cake is a lie.

Filthy a-cakeist! You cannot understand the recipe if you haven't already eaten the cake. Don't you see that you cannot explain desert without the cake which started it all.

581. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169356 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 8:24 pm

markg: Are you aware their are other creatures that eat leaves and produce milk? Cows, goats, sheep, humans, etc?

I'm sure the response should be something like "praise the lord!". Or perhaps its "See my logic force is you unable to beat".

lievmebe: It stays holy. For example, if you dilute holy water indefinitely it morphs into a homeopathic miracle fluid.

One drop of holy water in the ocean, and the hydrological process ensures every bit of water on earth is holy in short order. Not just holy but super-extra-special-mega-holy.
Surely I'm not the first to think of this? Why hasn't something been done. Imagine all of the sickness, possession etc which could have been prevented. Not to mention a significant reduction in vampire population.
Then again, I guess it probably has been tried. As effective as homeopathy I guess.

582. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169353 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 8:09 pm

thanks, re the comments. I try to only head to the next page once it the last post is a multiple of 50.
having said that, The amount of correction I'm having to do to my spelling means the hypothesis of me missing (or forgetting) the post becomes much more likely, especially as the control group (you guys) aren't having that problem.
Science works! :-)

583. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #169346 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Crazy_Steve: I think all of this discussion (in which I happen to mostly agree with Steve Zara) ignores the fact that most people are hopelessly ignorant of scientific process to the point that they don't realize that they are ignorant.

"Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing" sort of thing.
I mentioned a study on a different thread, concerning levels knowledge of a subject and the persons perceived levels of knowledge, which indicated some sort of inverse relationship - those with little knowledge rated themselves much higher than they were. Those with greater knowledge were more pesimistic. Might have to track it down and read the actual study instead of the "newscientist" article :-)

584. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169345 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:42 pm

It might be sleep depravation, but it seems at times I miss a comment or two. Not that I simply don't see it (which is highly possible), but that it doesn't appear in my browser.
I've heard talk of the alternate comment thread, but have no idea how to view it. Could that be where my comments are hiding, or is there some other rd.net-fu I need to master?
An example is Lil's recent post to Bonzai - I don't remember seeing Bonzai's post :-(

Probably delusional.
Wait a minute, I think Jesus might be whispering to me...no wait, just the cat.

585. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169343 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:40 pm

cleamind: All creations and creatures are all wisely connected to each other from sun and and sunlight to plants and vegetables or from soil to rain.

I'm new here, so I'm sorry if you've covered it previously.
What is this connection between things?
What does it do?
What is the mechanism behind it?
How do you know of it?

Also, question to everyone.
Does holy water ever become not holy again?
Just wondering, if it doesn't, would be worthwhile to get the pope to bless a few oceans and perhaps the amazon basin and nile delta, you know, to teach Satan and his minions a lesson?

586. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169340 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:34 pm

So, like ummm this is my first time hanging out here.
What do you guys want to do, you know, until the next posting fiasco begins?
I suppose we could go about our normal lives, but that sounds so, active.
Besides, it's noon on saturday and I've been up for about a day. I'm in no condition to do anything else :-)

587. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169337 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm

clearmind, I don't know if anyone has asked you this before. English is not your native language, correct? What is?
It's obvious a lot of people here have trouble following your logic, and it is either due to language or because you're unable to explain the brilliance of them to such simpletons. Surely someone with a grasp of logical analogies as secure as yours would be able to explain themselves to most normally intelligent people, and therefore there should be a greater number who can follow along with you.
If we knew what your native tongue was, perhaps someone else could act as a translator?

clearmind: I donna wanna say you are talking gibberish because bad words belong to the mouth it pops up. When you wanna talk something someting scientific or logical you can leave that club and go up to the intelligent level of logic, the, you will see us.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I couldn't play at your intellectual level clearmind. Don't have it in me

588. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169334 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Diacanu, I found the really insulting thing to be that Reamer didn't even tell us what sort of cake he was baking? I mean, was it a sponge, or chocolate mud? This is one of the big questions, and he just left it unanswered.
Apart from that, agree wholeheartedly.
Not to mention that if there was evidence for ID/creationism (did someone mention flood?), the specific religion which it supported would be more than happy to trot it out. They'd likely have it printed on the jacket of which the book the worship, to trot out at a moments notice.

589. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169332 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:24 pm

MPhil, thanks. I'll try to properly attribute all of my future copyright violations so you'll not be thought of poorly.
Thanks for the fleabytes stuff. I had read the whole thread (well, up to about 7000 posts anyway), but the items on this thread were fresher in my mind - they were also more on topic.

590. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169326 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Bonzai: A fruit cake?

I thought we had 2 of those?

591. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169323 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Diacanu: did they have to go bake another cake?

Bingo!

592. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169321 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:09 pm

MPhil: That wasn't the first time, either - and I reposted that comment on this thread, as rianduoglas noted earlier (thank you)...

I also borrowed some of your material to post on another site, I hope you don't mind.
Didn't want to link to your comments, as it seems invoking RD's name and/or website can cause people to react in a strange fashion.
The comment will probably be moderated into oblivion anyway. Oh well :-)

593. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169317 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:05 pm

MPhil: If you're interested in philosophy of science, you might want to look into structuralism, ie the works of Patrick Suppes, Joseph Sneed, Wolfgang Stegmüller, Wolfgang Balzer and Carlos Ulises Moulines (my professor of philosophy of science, worked and pubslished with all of the above).

MPhil, I'm beginning to dislike reading your posts.
Almost every time you open your metaphorical mouth, I have to add another book to my list, either that or scurry off to google to attempt to follow.
Tis great, thanks :-)

594. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169308 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Lil: P.S. We really should do this via email.

Unless you guys want to, or feel you need to take it to email, I'd love to eavesdrop.
I'm sure there's some rule concerning 4 digit thread counts and not needing to stick to the topic thereafter unless someone drops by to stir things up again. Not sure where I read that...

595. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169252 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Lil: Apparently you know nothing about moral philosophy.

You could have stopped 3 words earlier.

So truth, you done with throwing childish insults?
Care to back up you ID thesis on the open questions thread?
Or are you going to continue throwing this temper tantrum?

Remnant: Flood?
TheTruthID: 5keptics ID question?

Pulling a #10 - breakfast (possibly followed by sleep) calls. Toodles.

596. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169246 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 4:38 pm

BrianE: GMT10, but what is that in MMT (Mecca Mean Time)? MMT8?
Sleep, mmmm, good idea.

How foolish I've been! Without knowledge of where I stand re MMT, I could have my prayer times all messed up. Allah would be very upset with me for that.

597. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169242 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 4:36 pm

markg, i prefer the abridged version:

ID teacher(at an unaccreditted Christian school): Today we are going to study the universe.
ID teacher: God did it.
Students: Amen!

Remnant: Flood?
TheTruthID: 5keptics ID question?

598. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169239 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Bonzai: I wonder why he is here at all, just make some inane posts, make some pointless, patronizing insults but never really engages in any conversation, never answers a single question.

Well, they are apparently called to be Christ like. Seems all he did was pontificate to a couple of ignorant guys, insult others more learned than himself, and suffered from serious delusions of grandeur.
Then he buggered off to visit his dad, all the while promising he'd be back soon.
2000 years, and still nothing.

Remnant: Flood?
TheTruthID: 5keptics ID question?

599. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169236 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Remnant, make sure you get there before your imaginary saviour eats it. I've heard he's partial to cakes. Well, cakes and brains.
Oh, and if you could ever get around to actually asnwering a question which is put to you, instead of constantly dancing around it as if you're afraid you're faith might shatter, that would be nice. No rush, but you've had a while now.

Morning Brian. What was it like to sleep last night?
If I'm not mistaken you're in the same blighted timezone as myself (GMT 10)

600. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169232 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Remnant:Their God is chance.

Wrong. Atheists remember, no god or gods. A little slow on the uptake there cake boy.

Remnant:They assign magical creative power to it.

Nope. All natural explanations. You guys are the ones hypothesising magic.

Remnant:I makes no demands on them.

Either you're being slightly LOLcat there, or you mean our non existence god, chance, which is completely mindless, makes no demands on us. Great work there sherlock.

Remnant:It is their friend.

Nope. Agains, not a personal agent. Unlike some jewish zombie and his sadistic father.

Remnant:it allows them to do whatever they wish.

Nope. If it did I'd be able to make you understand how wrong you are about pretty much everything you've posted on this thread. Alas, for that to occur YOU need to actually take som initiative.

Remnant:No other God's are allowed, especially not the God of the Bible or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Plenty of room for gods. Just would like some corroberating evidence, thanks. Like a particular global flood?
If you're not going to answer the flood question, at least say why. I know it's because you can't but I'm interested in your answer anyway.

Remnant: Flood?
TheTruthID: 5keptics ID question?