Comments by epeeist

Comment #197031 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 12:35 am

Comment #196920 by alovrin

No I just like revving Al R up, for all the wrong reasons.

It can be fun can't it.

I liked one of his posts in which he was essentially claiming it was "historical inevitability" that "communist" states would fail. He also seems to think that free market capitalism is the final state of development.

Now, in a slightly different form, where have I heard that before?

602. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197010 by epeeist on June 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Comment #196992 by Quine

Just for fun, start with this view of the two Keck and Subaru telescopes from Google sat. Then, slowly keep clicking the zoom out button until you can see the whole island chain. (Note: no bathtub ring)

You do realise that it was less that 5000 feet high before the flood don't you?

It was only after the flood that it grew to its present height (must have been all the nutrients from the dead fish that helped it along).

603. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196552 by epeeist on June 20, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #196539 by al-rawandi

Plus the simple fact that Soviet Communism had a shelf life of less than a century and was bound to fail.

Ah, historical inevitability. Now where have I read about that before?

604. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #196437 by epeeist on June 20, 2008 at 12:54 am

Comment #195900 by Quetzalcoatl

Constructive criticism I can take, but vague statements like that aren't very helpful, and they nag at me.

Which is probably his criterion for success.

Or at least partial success, real success is for the person who the derision and jeering is aimed at to fire off at a high adrenaline level. Which he can then use to further his claims.

Been there, done that, saw through it and don't bother any more.

605. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196144 by epeeist on June 19, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #196121 by Galactor

I think you have lost sight of what ID is supposed to be. It has nothing whatsover to do with science; it isn't meant to be. It is an attempt to dress creationism up as science so that it can be presented as such in an attempt to gain it a level of credibility.

And to confirm this have a search for cdesign proponentsists, this is a good starting point - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

606. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196082 by epeeist on June 19, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #196068 by Vaal

Summer Solstice tomorrow. Can you bring back dancing around the woods naked please.

I was listening to BBC Radio 4 on a drive back from London today (I hate driving in London). On "From Our Own Correspondent" they had a guy who had been to the British Antarctic base.

Apparently on the day of the winter solstice they do a streak around the base. I wonder what the size of the male appendage is after running about in the nude at -30C?

607. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195862 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #195855 by irate_atheist

You are Tony Benn and I claim my five pounds!

What rot! You know very well that I'm Spartacus.

Hmm, perhaps you don't recognise the source of my quotation.

It was Harold Wilson talking about Tony Benn "a politician who immatures with age".

608. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195570 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #195490 by al-rawandi

Way to insult the new guy. Geeze, we can't take you anywhere.... You always have to make a scene.

As my mother used to say 'I can only take you somewhere twice, the second time to apologise.'

609. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #195408 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 7:17 am

Comment #195402 by al-rawandi

I really don't like to suggest that people are fundamentally different, but they do often come from fundamentally different environments. In terms of race, there is no scientific data to suggest any biological difference between peoples. In fact genetic variegation can be as great within one race as it could be between races.

I agree that the genetic variegation both within and without races can overlap. However, there are obviously differences between races. Things like sickle cell anaemia and Tay-Sachs are obvious examples.

There is a reasonable amount of research data to show that there are differences between white and black athletes which explain why black athletes perform better at some sports.

None of this should be taken as a value judgment however.

610. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195404 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 7:09 am

Not something I was aware of until recently. I think it may prove to be of help (or possibly not) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problems

611. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195376 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #195373 by irate_atheist

Philip, I'll be thirty two then. I tend to find I immature with age.

You are Tony Benn and I claim my five pounds!

(That will teach you to compare me to George Galloway)

612. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195375 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #195367 by Apathy personified

So maybe a new scientific theory will come along that explains everything ToE does, but also irons out any inconsistencies (although i'm not aware of any in ToE atm). Would we still be right in saying ToE is right? (in the same way, can we call newtonian mechanics right - or just a very good low speed approximation)

All theories are provisional, nor can we claim truth for them. Verisimilitude (which is not particularly well defined) is the best we can hope for.

MPhil posted a bit on abductive reasoning a few days past, inference to the best explanation.

613. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195360 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 am

While I think it was I who actually started the pressure on RtG to provide some evidence for creationism I think Brian's approach was far better than mine.

What is obvious is that the creationists think there are only two options, "evilutionism" and creationism and that discrediting the first automatically validates creationism.

This is obviously untrue. They are contraries not contradictories, one could be true but both could be false.

The creationist position fails on other counts as well. There may well be multiple hypotheses that explain the data rather than the two the creationist has chosen. This is a mixture of a bifurcation error and a personal epistemological standpoint.

If there are multiple hypotheses then each must stand on its own in terms of explanatory power. Use of things like Kuhn's criteria (accuracy, simplicity, broadness of scope, self-consistency and consistency with other theories and fruitfulness) plus the testability and falsifiability requirements will allow us to choose between competing hypotheses. We may run into the problem of under-determination if we end up with multiple theories with equal explanatory power. But again, it is up to the creationist to demonstrate the explanatory power of his hypothesis and show it to be at least as good as the ToE.

614. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195276 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #195229 by clearthinker

The term 'liberal Christian' seems to me an oxymoron. Does this mean a Christian who does not believe the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection etc? In what sense can they be called a Christian. It sounds as though he was converted from religion to atheism. Out of the frying pan into the fire.

It amuses me that the first thing that DAR commits is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

615. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195262 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #194876 by Jethro

A number of you guys who have been beating me up when I was at my tea seemed to infer that my attachment of 'uncompassionate' to 'natural selection' indicated misunderstanding on my part.

Jethro - discussion here can be, shall I say "robust".

Stick with it and don't be afraid to be just as forceful with your ideas.

616. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #195259 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:33 am

One thing that I would be interested in knowing about ketch22. He obviously has no problems coming here to proselytise to a bunch of hard nosed atheists.

One wonders what kind of a hospice he works in and, assuming it is not a specifically Christian one, whether he uses the opportunity to proselytise to the patients there.

617. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195246 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:12 am

Comment #194862 by Kardashovel

Eepist, you sly dog. PM me if you need some words of encouragement.

Thanks for the offer. However, the local Christian leafleteers now actually shut up shop and disappear up side alleys when they see me walking down the main street looking for somewhere to buy my lunchtime sandwich.

618. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194837 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #194832 by ReceivedTheGift

"Darwin's Black Box" is the scientific masterpiece of mankind. It is turning the Evolution proponent community upside down.

Oh, fuck now he is turning into wooter.

RtG you are a fuckwad of the first water. You have provided nothing in terms of positive proof for your version of the designer. You have been give multiple chances and have blown it each time. As such I am joining others in marking you as a troll.

619. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194822 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #194819 by black wolf

now if fundies had these big worms to come riding to our doorsteps instead of just hot air, that would be impressive.

Oh, fuck. Why did you have to mention worms. Expect clearmind any moment soon.

620. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194820 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #194807 by ReceivedTheGift

Now Behe, he's the new kid on the block. Very impressive. You all should read his work. You might learn the truth. Or is the truth too much to bear?

This would be the Behe who had his arse handed to him on a plate at the Kitzmiller-Dover trial?

Now - are you actually going to provide any evidence for a designer, whether of the Behe type or the cretinist type?

621. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194816 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 am

Comment #194789 by Steve Zara

I believe he already has. Apparently God made him so that he could distinguish between truth and lies:
Comment #193856 by ketch22 on June 16, 2008 at 6:35 am

1. I am not a philosophy "expert" (if there can be such a thing), nor am I a neurology or science wonder. I am a hospice RN who I believe God gave enough intelligence to discern truth from lie.

The humility of these Christians is astounding isn't it.

Do you think we need to worry about his gom jabbar?

622. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194775 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #194764 by al-rawandi

You read the "Koran" in Arabic? It is read right to left of course. Or you read the English right to left? I studied Arabic, and I don't see the value of reading a translation of Arabic right to left. Perhaps you actually read it in Arabic, I could be wrong.

ketch22 has also denied he believes in Thor, but has provided no explanation of why this should be. He has therefore dismissed one god who these days is regarded as mythological, and another god and prophet in whom a significant proportion of the world's population believe.

He has provided no real justification for such dismissal, nor has he provided much in terms of his truth claims in regard to Jesus (our resident historians could presumably tell us whether material written decades after the death of the putative Jesus by members of his cult, none of whom ever met him counts as secondary or tertiary evidence).

It would be interesting if he could explain why he is allowed to dismiss other religions in this way, while atheists are not allowed to dismiss Jesus in the same way.

After all, if we can't prove a negative and hence can't disprove the non-existence of Jesus then he can't disprove the existence of Vishnu, Atum or the angel Moroni.

623. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194705 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:48 am

Comment #194698 by LBraschi

Some research papers you might consider interesting:

Excellent - this is what I was looking for.

624. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194694 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #194676 by irate_atheist

Steve, epeeist - I stand by my comment #194668 on this particular know-nothing sad-sack.

No disagreement from me.

You know, I am beginning to think that we need a secret virtual handshake so that once a theist is pinned then nobody else puts distractors in that said theist can scuttle off after. Brian English's treatment of RtG last night was masterly.

625. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194689 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #194683 by phatbat

Sorry Epeeist

No sweat, consequence of an open site.

do you live in either the Portsmouth or Bristol areas of england

No, I live in a small village on the outskirts of Hyde near Manchester.

I do visit Bristol for the open tournament that takes place there every year - http://www.bristolopen.info/ but that's about the limit of it.

626. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194673 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #194666 by Shmeezers

And objective morality makes complete sense. For example - the statement that everyone has inalienable rights

Please demonstrate how "inalienable rights" is objectively moral. Why is it objectively moral? How do you know it is objectively moral?

627. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194663 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #194653 by phatbat

It could be a case of putting the cart before the horse but it is a very useful tool in getting the theist to try and squirm out of using the very arguments that an atheist could then use against them.

Well, you spoiled my second intention move, but never mind.

If he arbitrarily dismisses the existence of Thor as mythology then he opens himself to exactly the same method of dismissal of Jesus. If he claims that nobody believes in Thor any more then one can change the discussion to Vishnu for example.

If he makes truth claims on Jesus based on the bible then one can make similar truth claims on Thor based on the Havamal or Vishnu in the Rig Veda.

One isn't interested in theology at this point, simply in the existence of the claimed god.

628. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194618 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 4:38 am

Comment #194611 by Frankus1122

When the giant ice canopy fell and flooded the world where did it create deposits of oil?

Actually txp is was pretty close with his ice canopy. Except he made it too small.

It is obvious when you think about it. All this missing matter in the universe and the stars being further away than 6000 light years.

What is really happening is that stars are surrounded by Dyson spheres made of a special isomer of water. This has great strength and is solid up to at least 200C, most people refer to it as "scrith". It also has just the right properties so that the kinetic energy it gains when falling balances out the latent heat of melting.

It also has exactly the right attenuation to dim the light from stars so that they appear to be more than 6000 light years away. They are all properly placed in the firmament.

So you see, the bible is right, the earth is no more than 6000 years old and there was a global flood.

Poe's Law Alert: The Surgeon General has determined that taking this post seriously can severely affect your mental health.

629. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194613 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #194342 by ketch22

You asked why I don't believe in Thor. You call that an intelligent question and then don't understand why I don't respond. It doesn't deserve a response. Study up on historical theology a little more and then get back to me on why I don't worship Thor.

To change the focus slightly.

Are you claiming that Thor does not exist? If so, what is the basis of your claim?

Comment #194355 by ketch22

Please don't associate me with Clearmind. I don't understand what he is saying and don't need his defense.

I suspect that this is a point of agreement between you and everybody else on the site (excepting clearmind of course). Think of him as background noise and ignore him, that's what the rest of us do.

630. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194586 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #194580 by davelynch

who do you mean by Creationists and other such interventionists if you do not mean Christians?

One minor quibble - the opposite of atheism is theism, not Christianity.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone at this site, never mind for all atheists. However, I don't think there are many here who object to private belief. What is objected to is the assumption by religionists that they have the automatic authority to speak on issues of morality, social organisation and the like without being challenged in the way politicians, sociologists and philosophers are.

This particularly comes to the fore in the terms of science. There has been a significant exploration of what science is and its demarcation from non-science. To put it bluntly, neither creationism or its bastard offshoot "Intelligent Design" is science in any shape or form. Thus it should not be taught in science lessons.

If you want to teach creationism in religious education classes in schools then fine, but not in terms of indoctrination. There are many creation myths out there (personally I like to raise that of Atum when Christians talk about creation, but that is for my own amusement).

Again, I don't think you will find many atheists who object to religious education. You will find a significant number who are against religious indoctrination in schools.

631. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194552 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 12:24 am

Comment #194492 by ReceivedTheGift

It is very apparent that you do not have the education or intelligence to know what you are talking about. There is no need for you to respond to my questions. Your answers are worthless.

Getting to be quite a pattern with RtG. First he gets at Steve, not realising that Steve has done biology at the post-doc level. Now it would seem that Brian doesn't have the intelligence or qualifications to ask or answer questions. All this from some one who can't spell "esteemed".

I think I will keep quiet about my qualifications for the moment.

632. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194550 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 12:17 am

Comment #194460 by markg

I'll help RtG: http://about.ralphlauren.com/default.asp?ab=footer_aboutus

Nah,you know it was really Yves St Laurent. You know, that gay French guy.

633. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194547 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 12:06 am

Comment #194314 by phil rimmer

I call Troll now. There hasn't been the slightest hint of dialogue and nobody's brought any drinks to the party....

Agreed, though I think a mixture of "troll" and "offensive" is more apposite.

634. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194198 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #194186 by ReceivedTheGift

With a display of 5 pieces of art, would not an art novice have the ability to determine which 3 were the works of Picasso? Why? The same creator and or designer.

And he has pressed the reset button again.

Until you actually show some evidence for your creator or designer then why should we pay it any heed.

Get it through your thick skull - If you are claiming that there is a creator or designer then the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence for such an entity. Criticising evolution does not provide evidence for your creator. Even if the theories of quantum mechanics, relativity and evolution are wrong this does not mean that creationism is correct.

Provide some evidence.

635. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194188 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #194179 by Steve Zara

All challenges creationism has put forward have been met. It is a lie.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli - "it isn't even wrong".

I presume that everyone has noted that RtG has done the standard fundie trick. Namely criticise evolution on the assumption that this validates creationism, thereby showing he knows as little about logic as he does about biology.

And in the same way as he has provided no evidence for the existence of a creator, never mind the cosmic Jewish zombie that he worships, he has provided no positive evidence for creationism either.

Why is this I ask? Two reasons immediately spring to mind. The first is that there isn't any evidence for creationism. Absolutely none.

The second is that RtG really doesn't have a clue apart from what his pastor tells him. He is the archetypal "one book in his library" person. Too stupid to know he is stupid. So even if there was any evidence for creationism he would be incapable of producing it.

636. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194155 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #194147 by ReceivedTheGift

Regarding the fact that Spartina anglica evolved naturally from Spartina Ãƒâ€" townsendii; this was a process of microevolution, not macroevolution. Spartina anglica contained no new genetic information and in fact had less usable genetic information as pieces of it's DNA were now corrupted.

You sir are the most idiotic person I have come across on this site. What you are saying is that Dr. Zara has no idea what he is talking about. Given that he has both a first degree and a research degree in biology and has done post-doctoral work in the subject I would rather think that he has somewhat more clue than the pig-ignorant nebbish that you have shown yourself to be. Personally I doubt you have the acumen to actually understand his blog in the first place.

Oh, and three strikes and you are out.

No evidence for your god, and anything that is claimed without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence.

637. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194149 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz

(I'm anticipating lots of "on your own head be it" type remarks!)

Okay, I'll go first - on your own head be it ;-)

If you do decide to accept and the topic is on creationism then I would make sure that your opponent sticks to the brief. Criticising the Big Bang (unlikely) and evolution (very likely) isn't defending creationism. You want positive, evidential support to be presented. I know I keep waffling on about the burden of proof, but keep them on target and don't let them descend to discussing the "problems" of evolution.

638. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194136 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm

omment #194133 by ReceivedTheGift

Adhering to the science methodology of how you make curcumstantial evidence or inferences become fact, how would you know that I actually grew wings? Any witnesses to this? Too many assupmtions. Too many "mights" "may be's" "could have's".

You "could have" chosen to answer the questions that were put to you. Instead you try your usual evasions and attempt to shift the burden of proof elsewhere.

Strike two!

One more strike and you are out. Answer the question! Show us some evidence that the universe was created and that your god created it. Otherwise accept the opprobrium that will be heaped on you.

639. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194131 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #194121 by Kardashovel

I dunno... it's possible, but it seems a bit of a coincidence that cultures on five continents would all choose the same type of disaster to exaggerate. Why not fire, or drought?

We don't tend to get much drought here in Manchester and it tends to put a dampener on fires.

Have you looked for fire and drought myths? The obvious fire myth is that of Muspellheim and the destruction of the world at Ragnarok.

Sea level rose by over 100m in a relatively short period of time. Assuming the ancient populations clustered on the coasts, near river deltas, they would see their homes consumed by the flood waters and the ocean.

I don't see we are contradicting each other here. The major thing to decide is whether the flood myths were roughly contemporary.

640. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194119 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #194109 by ReceivedTheGift

Good Day. I was thinking. It is becomming very expensive to travel these days. Has any headway been made in science which can decrease the time for Macroevolution? Just think how great it would be if we could all grow wings and fly.

Isn't it time that you actually answered the questions that Brian English and I put to you?

Let's see some evidence for this creator of yours.

641. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194118 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #194104 by Kardashovel

It is noteworthy that many cultures around the world have flood myths. I suspect that the end of the last ice age is responsible for this phenomenon.

Possibly. However, one could also posit that it is because people tend to live near where there is a ready supply of water. Plus the fact that flood plains tend to have high fertility.

All reasonable conjectures. The next step would of course to be start looking at some evidence.

642. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194101 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Comment #194097 by Kardashovel

Keep it up and RD will be able to charge admission.

The question then is whether we want someone like Mark Mathis on the door turning away undesirables...

643. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #194096 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #194091 by al-rawandi

Suicide bombing is largey an issue of Nationalism, specifically with respect to Tamil Eelam. Lebanon saw the same issue, in addition to Hezbollah there were Christian suicide bombers as well. Robert Pape does the best research on the topic, plenty of statistics, and a complete listing of all suicide attacks and the religion and profile of the bombers as well as the targets.

See - I said you were educational ;-)

644. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194095 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Comment #194085 by Kardashovel

Y'all are making this stuff up. Admit it.

< petulant four year voice >It wasn't our fault, we didn't start it. It was that txpiper and his friend receivedTheGift< /petulant four year voice >

Ice Canopy

645. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194084 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #194076 by al-rawandi

Look at you gentlemen. I am constantly amazed at the patience some people here show the benighted hoardes who constantly cycle through this place. I guess I don't fall under "helpful" or "educational" in my approach.

I can see "helpful" isn't really your thing.

Educational? Absolutely, even when you say things I disagree with.

646. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #194079 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #193404 by rutan668

But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.

I think fizhburn has covered this. My understanding is that there is some dispute as to whether the Tamils are atheist or Hindu, but I wouldn't want to press this.

A couple of things I would dispute though. Are you certain that the Tamils are committing their terrorist attacks because of their atheism? Or are they doing it because of their nationalism.

The second thing I would want to argue against is the idea of an "atheist philosophy". How can a simple disbelief in the existence of gods be called a philosophy?

647. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194068 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 11:37 am

Comment #194061 by MPhil

I have been strongly influenced by epeeist on this. Sometimes, with the best intentions, we let such people run rings around us. We end up pandering to them, answering every question.
That makes sense... sounds right. Still, somehow, epeeist manages not to "lose his cool" over the irrational people coming here.

I wouldn't want to lose the educational aspect of this site. But it does mean that we educate the educable, not the people who are solely here to vent their ideologies and do not read what is presented to them in the first place.

The only things that these people need to be taught is that bifurcation is a fallacy, perceived "problems" with evolution do not mean that ID/creationism is valid. Secondly, they need to be made aware that if they do have claims then the burden of proof is upon them.

As for losing my cool - I have been taken a leaf out of Shayne Dark's book. As he says, the fundies tend to be fairly sensitive to "bad language" and it can be a useful provocational technique. However, I can't claim to be any where near as imaginative with it as the Rev. Dark or Diacanu.

648. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194009 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #194004 by al-rawandio Catholics still burn witches or torture Jews into fake conversions?But Catholics aren't real Christians are they ;-)

649. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194001 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 9:19 am

Comment #193978 by ketch22

If you really want to exercise your mind, hop on over to access research network www.arn.com where real intelligent people debate without ridicule.

OK, here is a comment that I am sure you are going to dismiss as ridicule.

Anyone who can put together a web site with as poor accessibility as that one has wants shooting.

650. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193929 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #193917 by Mark Smith