801. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #55205 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

Couldn't watch more than a few minutes of that pile of shite before my stomach churned and I vomited blood because of the absolute inanity of it

802. Neutral evolution has helped shape our genome

Comment #55162 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 am

On one level, an example of bad design. On another level, it is good for the mitochondrial DNA. This is only inherited from the mother, so a fathers' mitochondrial DNA is at a dead end. At least some of this DNA can now be transmitted by the father. Since it does nothing, yet gets transmitted at the expence of host energy resources, would "parasitic DNA" be a better term.

803. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55099 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

Interesting essay on the evolution of morality here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/evolpsych.html

804. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55090 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 2:19 am

Going to try not to get drawn into the morality debate, but how do theists reconcile the fact that certain brain lesions alter the "moral sensor"? The only logical explanation is that it is solely a physical-chemical process?

Biz,
My question about hen's teeth too challenging for you?

805. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54805 by BillySands on July 9, 2007 at 2:55 am

Creationists will argue that mutations are the result of the fall, and I am inclined to agree.

Why? You deny evolution, yet you say this. Evidence? I will dgive you some evidence against this: There are lots of deformed fossils that are older than humans out there- short bones, twisted bones, bones with knobs on and two heaged embryos for example

In the context, I was obviously implying that the human body functions just as it is supposed to function if it was created by a Creator.

Evidence of a purpose please. BTW what harm did hamsters ever do that god should punish them and what do you think T rex ate before the fall?

This is irrelevant. It can also support common design. GM used the LT1 engine for Camaros and Corvettes, but no one is going to argue that the Corvette evolved from the Camaro.

No it isn't. I presume the LT1 is exactly the same in both cars. Mouse and fly genes are not exactly the same. Mouse and human genes are more alike, as are fy and beetle genes. The gene swap experiments show the sequence is irrelevant. Evidence of a common designer would be identical gene sequences- as in your fallacious analogy

Calling it all "evolution" and utilizing it in an attempt to prove common descent is just clouding the water.

No it's not, because it is all evolution. If you means something particular, then be specific.

Nothing more than useless duplications of features that were already pre-existent in the organism. Copying two pages of Harry Potter doesn't add any new information to the book does it? Now I am not exactly well-read on the first two examples, but I am aware that the extra set of wings on the fruit flies are totally non-functional.

Feally? I think you'll find that its not duplication. However, you might want to ask what those genes for tooth development are doing in toothless birds in the first place. Also a simple doubling of something can alter body plan in a gene dose way - evolution.
Also, you are setting yourself a straw man here. Duplication + mutation = new information. Do you deny duplications occur? Dou you deny mutation occurs?
This is how our opsin genes evolved - one has even duplicated part of the flanking sequence. The duplicated one aquired mutations that shifted wavelength sensitivity.

What I find logically challenging is trying to support common descent with mutations that are either neutral or destructive.

Now, we both know (i hope) that some mutations are beneficial. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2 http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

The Galapagos wingless beetle is a great example of evolution in action, but it cannot explain how the wings arose in the first place considering that the observed evolution is the exact opposite of what must occur in order for common descent to be a valid theory.

Really, that is not evidence against common decent - it is decended from winged ancestors, and has lost its wings. So what! Bet it still contains decaying genes for wings - just like chickens with teeth. How about the evolution of multicellularity in chlamydomonas an the presence of predators?

806. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54601 by BillySands on July 8, 2007 at 4:33 am

I don't quite understand what you're attempting to prove with this argument. The human body works just like the human body is supposed to work. What objective model to you have with which to critique the human design?

That implies purpose. What evidence do you have to back that up? The point is that we have an eye built a certain way because we had to use what was available to our anacestors. If we had mammals with mamalian type eyes and squid like eyes, you may have a point. However, we dont see that. Do you believe in a deceptful designer? It is the same when we look at gene sequences - mammals are more similar to each other than they are to insects. In fact the pax6 gene (which controls development of the eye) is interchangeable between mice and flies. So, sequences were not "designed" for a specific purpose, as you can effectively change the sequence and still produce a fully functional mouse or fly. The reason they vary is evolution. you dont need a particular sequence to make a mouse look like a mouse

That is not to say that we have not undergone substantial "devolution".

No, you mean evolution, unless you can show that we have changed from a "created" genotype in someway. Either way, that is still change and evolution.

I never argued that evolution doesn't occur; I only argued that the evolution we observe cannot be used to support common descent.

Please clarfy your position on evolution then

This is akin to the wingless Galapagos beetle argument that has been dismantled by creationists time and time again. The physiological features that were eliminated by the mutations in both cases may have served to ensure higher survival rates in their respective environments, but these selective advantages were only achieved through a loss of genetic information.

Maybe you need to understand what evolution actually is: change over time - drop the straw man of information. Anyway, why do you call this a loss of information? Any way, what the mutation does is confer new abilities on the protein - it can still transport oxygen, but can now sense low oxygen tensions and transfer that into structural changes. Sounds like a new information property of the protein to me, that is transmitted by the gene. Also, you do not need to gain genetic material to change body shape. You can change the timing and positioning of gene activation, or even lose DNA in the case of the ALX4 gene and hind paw morphology. Tell me, why do chickens sometimes produce teeth or dolphins an extra set of flippers, of fruit flies an extra pair of wings?

Just ask yourself this question: if you had to bet your life savings on how long a greyhound could survive in the wilderness compared to how long a wolf could survive in the wilderness, which would you choose? The greyhound may have one specific feature that is superior to a wolf, but it is lacking in other important areas such as jaw strength and intelligence, and it is still susceptible to many health problems that wolves are not.

I'm going to take a wild guess here, but you haven't researched the biomechanics of canine jaws - have you? If red deer go extinct, and all you have left to eat are rabbits, which do you think will be more sucessfull? Selective breeding shows it is possible for wolves to change in such a way - over a very short time-that they could evolve to chase faster and smaller prey. The health issue is also a red herring. Evolution does not optimise - it is constrained by the raw materials available to it. That is why certain genes like the sickle cell one survive. That is why we have design flaws and why some animals have better solutions than we do - like the squids eye - no blind spots or blood vessels running over the retina that can burst and blind the organism.
Also, what health problems do greyhounds have, or is this just hopeful thinking? Even if there are, some, like I say, it's not a problem

807. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54444 by BillySands on July 7, 2007 at 6:23 am

Of course this is a pretty weak argument as for something to appear designed it must have the qualities of things that we know are designed

What? like something that has straight lines and repreating pattern? Like a copper sulphate crystal or a snow flake - oops, they're not designed, they just form

Similarly, as Davies and Hoyle and Hawking have pointed out it is highly improbable mathematically that the physical constants of the universe are the result of chance.

And? Who says we may not think differently one day? How is that evidence of a so called relational god? Its hardly up there with seeing him now is it. It really is just an arguement from ignorance.

This is really poor, Billy, especially for an intellectual like yourself. None of these examples even touch upon the question of design. In fact, short of some further elabaoration by your good self they don't even contradict Genesis.

Wll, if you think it is poor, then you are the one who needs to say why. Genesis says the universe (which is small) came into being over 6 days and that the sun was made after the earth - how is that not contradictory? Which of these 2 scenarios are more likely if the universe was designed?
1) The universe is young, contains one planet, and the oldest rocks contain fossilised remains of modern creatures.
2) the universe is 14 billion years old, there are billions of planets and the earliest known life (which is simple) occurs in old rocks that formed 10-11 billion years after the beginning of time. Furthermore, there are radically different life forms in different rock layers, with some forms linking different groups?

Well, I've yet to do this but in regard to selective breeding as Phillip Johnson has pointed out this is the purposeful work of intelligent human beings so the analogy to NS is flawed to say the least. Similarly, your appeal to'imagination'further serves to highlight the weakness of your case. This is not about lack of imagination its about lack of evidence - evidence for evolution.

strange comment to say the least considering your confession that you have not looked at the evidence. Not suprisingly, you miss the point. Selective breeding shows that large changes can happen in a very short period of time. So, imagine red deer go extinct and wolves then need to rely on prolific, smaller and faster prey, we know that is possible - it's called a greyhound!

Not at all. It is the scientists like Hawking, Hoyle, and Davies who are admitting that it is as if a super-intellect has been playing around with the laws of physics. I've simply shown that the attempt to dismiss a Designer by asking where did it come from is flawed. The evidence leads to a designer and the arguments against a designer are false. I don't dny you can come up with alternatives but I deny that they are the most reasonable.

See above! Also, you need to state why demanding to know the origin of the designer is flawed. All you have done is give him some properties without any justification, so I'm not just going to take your word for it - evidence please!
Your designer seems very deceitful. i'm guessing he must think you are wasting your time (as do we) since he has not made his designing hand obvious - infact every time we modify an organism, we are effectively saying - that was a bad design, lets fix it (maybe that's why 99.9% of his designs are extinct) Do you believe he designed pathogens too? You really are just saying "wow, we exist, and this book tells me why" - I'll pass on that thanks

the example of chimps was an ad hoc explanation.

Dont try and deflect. Answer why we have an intrachromosomal telomere sequence that inverts. Do it in such a way that both denies evolution and provides evidence of a creator

Nope, 99.9% of fossilevidence for evolution isn't there and the best examples eg Archaeopteryx are questionable. For a specialist to say it is no more than a perching bird is a denial of the claims you're making

Again you fail to provide evidence. Who is this specialist? Well actually, I dont need to know, unlike theists, I make my own mind up about evidence and dont say it must be true because the milk man says so - and he has a goldfish so it must be true. The fact is that the fragment of the fossil record we have is in perfect harmony with evolution. Small samples are more prone to random error, but the fossil record is consistent.

Answer some of the other guy's points too - I would love to hear what you think a transitionl species should be

808. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54062 by BillySands on July 5, 2007 at 6:52 am

Surely, ALL things - and certainly dogs - are absolutely subject to natural selection. In this particular instance humans may be taken as a process within natural selection and if a breed does not withstand the "oohs" and "aahs" of Crufts judges, then it will be deleteriously selected. Can someone comment upon this?

Good point Galactor, I've never thought of that before. It is those that are best adapted to the environment that are more likely to be selected. So big slobbery stupid dogs exploit an ecological niche ang perpetuate their advantageous genes

809. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54056 by BillySands on July 5, 2007 at 6:09 am

Dr. Dawkins, as much as I enjoy your scathing attacks on these people, I think it's about time to stop reading Behe, and stop giving him credence (and no doubt extra sales) by acknowledging him. His theory was publically torn to pieces, he has absolutely no credit among people with an IQ of over 80 and now you are simply kicking a man while he's down.

I generally find creationism is a mixture of ignorance and lies, with a political agenda. We need to keep showing the likes of behe and co to be the fools they really are. An example of a blatant lie I came across recently is this: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1351,Rival-to-evolution-may-enter-schools,Adam-Forest#53288

Some of them are probably posting in this thread, actually.

Think he's actually a flood believing YEC

810. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54025 by BillySands on July 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

Chihuahuas are certainly not as healthy as wolves

And??????? They are not subject to natural selection. My eye is not as good as that of an eahle or "constructed" as well as that of a squid. My back is a bad "design" and gives my lungs sloppy mechanical properties, unlike salamanders, I cant grow new limbs. My second chromosome has an extra centromere and internal telomeric sequences that invert. The scickle cell mutant causes disease, yet is an evolutionary advantage How many misrepresentations do you intend fitting into a post? Anomals have a tool kit of genes that allows gross morphological changes, so what is your point?

If anything, the different dog breeds are excellent examples of the often destructive power of mutations.

So, greyhounds are not faster than wolves then? Hmmm - try again. I'm sure some dog lovers could point out other "non degenerative" qualities of other breeds

Straw man alert:

Actually, in a Godless world ethics have no meaning or relevance in that morality implies choice. If I murder a toddler, you would all deem it "bad" and say that I ought not kill innocent children. However, "ought" implies "can", and "can" implies free will, i.e., the ability to choose. However, if we are naught but chemical masses, then I fail to see how any such choice isn't anything less than a logical absurdity. My "choices" are merely complex chemical reactions that were inevitable since the beginning of the Universe. In light of the scientific challenge to free will, the concept of "choice" becomes silly, and with it, the idea of morality and ethics.

How about chemical processes allow you to shape a moral position - that is in harmony with an evolutionary past. How on earth do you come up with your ultimate predetermination sillyness?

811. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53981 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 3:45 pm

The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution

Come to think about it, he cant be a very good designer if only 0.1% of his designs are capable of surviving :-)

812. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53967 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Hi NLHB
How are you these days? Those CDs sound great

Billy

813. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53958 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

Hi quetz,
you are most welcome. Thanks for sorting out the selfish gene stuff. As I suspected, it was just another YEC lie. Naivety used to make me use the word misrepresentation in the past. Lie is a much better word. Here is another lie I came across recently:

just checked the truth in science joke site, Apparently there is a new design feature in the eye - shame they have no evidence of ths claim, I checked the flagellum page http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
they cite this paper as evidence that the flagellum gave rise to the ttss and not the otherway around http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
thet say

The authors disagree with the idea that the flagellum has evolved from the TTSS, and write that TTSS genes are "derived from" (p. 7120) flagellar genes. There is some evidence that the simpler structure of the TTSS could have evolved from the more complex structure of the flagellum, not vice versa.

However, the paper actually says

"The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20)."

The paper also points out that some proteins are not necessary for flagellar function, further reducing its complexity.
Typical lying fundies!

Originally posted here

814. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53928 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 8:46 am

Now really GBG

Well, clearly you're talking nonsense a fact thats confirmed by all the books Prof dawkins has written trying to escape from the reality of Design in nature. Both the physicists and biologists like dawkins acknowledge the evidence for design and, indeed, in the early part of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins criticises an atheist philosepher for being so naive in dismissing the need for an answer to this evidence.

Really? I haven't read much of the blind watchmaker, although my peers discussed it a lot (Richard forgive me). I think you actually mean interpretation, not evidence. Like I say, Evolution argues against design. The fact that the universe is so huge with so many planets and is so old and the fact that humans have only been around for an insignificant fraction of this time argue against design - I can see where your need to deny science comes from though.

'Who designed the designer" argument which is, as shown, irrelevant

Justify. It has not been shown to be irrelevant. All you have done is made a special pleading

Of course, this is also irrelevant because there exists no evidence that NS and RM can produce new characteristics or information.

Want a bet? look up opsin gene duplication and mutation. Look up selective breeding - look what can happen is only a few years - imagine you had billions to play with.

So, the fact remains that a designer is required by the evidence and it is logically possible that that Designer is not contingent or caused but is, in fact, Necessary

Erm no. this is really poor reasoning - considering you have not provided any evidence against evolution or indeed considered other possibilities - like the multiverse or the universe always existing in some form. It appears that you want there to be a designer, so you have logic filters in place.

No, they make no such "predictions". What they do is observe the data and then mould their theory to fit it which is what you're doing here.

What a total lie. Is this the best that you can do? I really am offended by this, and it is so typical of YECs. perhaps you may want to read this post and see some predictions that I made concerning the ordering of genes if this were true, then look at the results I came up with after comparing genomes:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#35871
Another embarassimg prediction (for fundies) was that there would be links between land mammals and whales - ever heard of Ambulocetus?

You then offer the totally unsupported ad hoc explanation above.

Erm, intra-chromosomal telometic sequences? and a decaying second centromere! as will as gene seguences - see above post

The allegation of "quote mining" is simply a fundamentalist atheist's way of conveniently ignoring the facts.

YAAAAWWWN! Wake me up when you have something other than conspiracy theories and unsupported ad homminems - remember. evolution is in no way, shape or frm the reason I am an atheist - Yawn!

facts are that 99.9% of the fossil evidence for evolution doesn't

Yet we still have Archaeopteryx and Ambulocetus! Your point is?

Archaeopteryx are debated (and even denied) by evolutionists.

Ah the old tactic of trying to exagerate differences. The view you refer to is by no means mainstream,or even very well supported - I presume this is why you have not presented an anatomical challenge - going stroppy and stamping your feet will not give archaeopteryx an anapsid skull for example

Well it does harmonise with the facts but you use a few examples to undermine the massive amounts of evidence testifying to its essential trustworthiness. The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution and yet complain about Luke 2 demonstrates you're blinkered view

Finished your girlie outburst yet? No it doesn't make sence - joseph has two dads? (luke, 3 actually) contrived prophecies? historical inaccuracies - census of quirinius? God defeated by iron charriots? did jehoiachin have a sucessor or not? etc etc How does any of this contradict the facts of evolution?

Come on, I gave you a chance to disprove evolution - where are all those early mammals?

Well if evolution was true the Bible would be false.

The pope and Ken Miller disagree. Seriously though, if that is what it means to you, then try being honest with yourself about why you need to deny evolution. Like I say, I am not the one with an agenda to promote.

815. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53844 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Hi SG, we can just set the big man on them


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yQIg7ydbg

816. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53838 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm

We wont let the bastards get us down. Here is an email i just got

two quotes from an eye-witness.........John Smeaton (these
are real) John just surpassed himself on the National ITV news. The
interviewer asked "What message do you have for the bombers" - he
replied:
"This is Glasgow - we'll just set about you"

John done an interview on CNN and they asked how he restrained the guy
and he said "Me and other folk were just tryin tae get the boot in and
some other guy banjoed him" !

Apparently John Smeaton now has his own site http://www.johnsmeaton.com/

817. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53812 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 10:22 am

GBG

Totally incorrect as you know. I am not asserting that "God is no longer necessary"

so you mean he is? well you did say

and necessary (eg God).

well, you still haven't justified this statement

but rather that the mere POSSIBILITY of the existence of a Necessary Being doesn't mean that such a being exists.

What a thourughly feeble statement. What evidence do you have that there is a need for aneccessary being - any more than a necessary can of coca cola for existence?

This however is not the case because it is possible that the designer exists 'Necessarily'

Evidence? Not only do you invent a designer, but you give him particular qualities that prevents you questioning further. Suppose there was a designer, and he was designed. It seems you are being selective in your arguements and are trying to prove your point (and failing). Who designed the designer is a valid question, but there is no point in addressing that since there is no evidence of a designer

Again you're response is wrongheaded. The word 'illusion' is an INTERPRETATION of the data and not the most reasonable one but is, instead, an attempt to escape the obvious. Richard acknowledges that organisms are extremely complex and appear to be intelligently designed and his attempt to undermine the argument to design is unsuccessful.

No, evolution destroys design, not just who designed the designer. Evolutionists make predictions based on the evidence, that gets confirmed : chimps have one more chromosome than us, therefore 2 of ours fused after splitting from chimps. Further predictions include the existence os inta chromosomal telomeric sequences and an extra centromere in the fusion product - guess what, its chromosome 2 and all these exist. What do you have? god made man (or was it man, anoimal and people -or animals and people together?)

sorry Billy but note this from the site you cite:

Try reading the peer revievwed studies they quote. a review is not a piece of original research

When we previously discussed this I cited one of the world's leading authorities on birds and an evolutionist. He acknowledges that Archaeopteryx is merely a bird and not an intermediate.

From what I recall, you quote mined and presented no evidence, so what's your point?

Its funny the way you keep harping on about Archaeopteryx. This stands as proof of the pitiful absence of evidence for Darwinian theory. 99.9% of the fossil evidence isn't there remember?? And you complain about problems in the Bible???

Call me pedantic, but I would expect the inspired word of the so called creator of the universe to actually make sense and be in harmony with the facts. The rarity of fossilisation makes it all the more remarkable we have so many intermediates.
Were are all the vertabrates in the oldest rocks?

Out of interest, what would it mean to you if you discovered evolution was true

818. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53781 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 5:54 am

personally, I wish the bishop would just strap semtex to himself and jump off a bridge. Of course all christians talk bollocks from time to time. I just read my former ministers blog (a friend pointed out he wrote an article on muppet bishop above). I noticed however, he claimed that he had been cured of a cold by prayer (wonder if it had anything to do with me knocking healing on a friends blog). Turns out, he (still)has whooping cough: "Attacks of a choking cough that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes, often with vomiting, severe facial congestions and a feeling or appearance of suffocation. Between these attacks of coughing the sufferer appears and usually feels perfectly well.These choking attacks of coughing happen as little as twice a day or as many as fifty. Between attacks ('paroxysms' is the technical name) the sufferer may not cough at all.'Whooping' is a noise that comes from the voice box after a paroxysm when the sufferer is suddenly able to take a breath in again."
Hope he hasnt been spitting in the communion wine or kissing babies in the mean time - one of the more subtle dangers of faith.
Healing my arse!

819. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53673 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 1:37 pm

The creationist concept of kind on you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo

The "science" of Behe's book has already been well trashed:http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#links
I personally like the fact he has built an arguement around a false fact (so unlike him). You do not need 2 mutations for chloroquine resistance. one is enough: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471055a.html

Dr Benway have you just had your ringpiece bleached?

820. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53610 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 8:38 am

GBG

The fact that it is logically possible for a Necessary Being to exist doesn't mean it does but it is, at least possible.

So, you are back tracking. God is no longer necessary, but possible. That's a step in the right direction. Your statement was however that he was necessary, and thats wwhat I asked you to back up.

I'm not quoting Dawkins out of context but simply asserting that his famous argument against a Designer doesn't stand up

You are, because he goes to great length to explain the illusion of design. I find this fundie misrepresentiation very distasteful.

As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.

Oh really? I'm not the one who is indulging in wishful thinking. I have provided evidence in the past. You have provided none to support your claim it was a bird. If you want to convince me otherwise, you better come up with some pretty damn good evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Variation
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dromey.htm
Discuss!

821. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53569 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 4:39 am

Maybe god is angry at the fact we dont have enough Gay bishops
Well, obviously not the OT god, he wants to kill them

822. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53454 by BillySands on July 1, 2007 at 2:04 pm

the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.

let's get back to stoning gays and taking sex slaves then - TWAT!

823. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #53288 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 3:07 pm

just checked the truth in science joke site, Apparently there is a new design feature in the eye - shame they have no evidence of ths claim, I checked the flagellum page http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
they cite this paper as evidence that the flagellum gave rise to the ttss and not the otherway around http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
thet say

The authors disagree with the idea that the flagellum has evolved from the TTSS, and write that TTSS genes are "derived from" (p. 7120) flagellar genes. There is some evidence that the simpler structure of the TTSS could have evolved from the more complex structure of the flagellum, not vice versa.

However, the paper actually says

The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20).

The paper also points out that some proteins are not necessary for flagellar function, further reducing its complexity.
Typical lying fundies!

824. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53263 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Paul,
the events that cause mutation are random - eg, environmental factors like radiation or mutagens. There are also random errors in DNA copying and repair. We often get things like viruses randomly integrating into our genomes, and random errors in the production of eggs and sperm. What selects these mutations are not random. Imagine there is an advantage in being able to detect an extra colour. We could better tell poisonous or ripe fruits for example (this is probably what selected coulour vision in humans, and our opsin genes have been duplicated, and random mutation has produced one that has an altered wavelentgh detection). That gives an advantage as you can spend less time foraging, and dont get poisoned. Conversely, bad mutations are selected against. Imagine a wading bird on a mudflat. If it has a mutation that increases the surface area of its feet, it can forage better and will produce more offspring, and those carrying the mutation will be favoured. Those with a mutation that decreases the area of the foot will be at a disadvantage and will be selected against. Most mutations are bad and are selected against. hope that helps

825. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53248 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 10:23 am

I think highlighting the unscientific nature of ID is important. We see it so often here when trolls come on and say things like "(insert famous non bio-scientist of choice)" says life looks designed. Their arguements are more appeals to authority than anything real or threatening to science, bbut the public dont realise that.

Love the term "memosphere" I plan to use it in a dissmissive way at the first possible opportunity :-)

826. God Hates the World

Comment #53241 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 9:04 am

Cool J (isn't that a rapper) I'll send you a PM with my email address. I was sold a bum camera. I got some of Killi from mount meru, but it stopped working a few days later

827. God Hates the World

Comment #53238 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 8:37 am

You have got to wonder, why not just forgive people?
David points out one of the most bizzare contradictions of christianity: god forgives you, but you still have to answer to him - how strange! the thing about judas is, apparently he will sit at a throne in heaven:

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I have a slight hunch the bible is inconsistant nonsence made up by people.
What do you think?

Di sounds interesting

828. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53224 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 7:24 am

Cheers TemporaryAura
Shame it wasn't a free church of Scotland. Mind you, one day they will be giving them away free :-)

829. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53205 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 5:02 am

Donald
It is also worth mentioning that sex greatly increases the rate of evolution. It allows transfer of beneficial mutations to new individuals that have themselves aquired beneficial mutations. Genes interact, and selection acts on more than one factor at a time. A simple example would be multiple drug resistance. An asexual organism would produce a beneficial mutation in the genepool at a low rate, and doesnot get transferred between members of the species. You would then have some individuals resistant to drug A or B, but not both. Sex allows individuals that spontaneously generate mutatants to A and B to mix their genes. The result is the sexual populatin become multidrug resistant much faster than the asexual population, where individuals need to generate both mutations on their own.

830. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53203 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 4:37 am

This would appear to be the usual Dawkins-esgue escapism. Logically there are three 'states' of existence: impossible (eg square circles), possible (eg humans), and necessary (eg God). Since it is logically possible to have a necessary being then it is futile to ask where it came from or who designed it. By definition a necessary existence has no designer, cause, or beginning.

Richard Dawkins asserts that living organisms are immensely complex and seem to have been intelligently designed. Similarly physicists like Hoyle, Davies, Hawking acknowledge that this is also the case with the physical constants of the universe. Therefore, we propose, quite reasonably that the universe and the organisms within it were designed.
The question as to the Designer's origin is resolved by saying that it is uncaused or Necessary which is in line I might add with the Bible.

Defend that statement! How does it follow that god is necessary?
When will YECs stop quoting Dawkins out of context on design?

Why does the designer have to be uncaused? Why can't the universe be uncaused. These however are not the questions that made you believe in YEC though are they? The universe is old with many many planets and Archaeopteryx is more dinosaur than bird - I believe that is where we left off before

831. God Hates the World

Comment #53200 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 4:17 am

Great links guys. There is also a jobbi in tanzania - unfortunately My Camera stoped working, so I couldn't get a photo of the jobbi clinic - was more annoyed with that than not being able to take a photo from the summit of Killimanjaro.
Anyone not familliar with what a jobbi(e) is, this should explain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga2Z5wpQtBE&NR=1

Shuggy I believe you are correct about the local pronunciation, but it can also be a term for a girl's naughty bits.

Isn't it worse than that? Isn't the father and son the one in the same

So that means he is his own dad because he has sex with his own mum ?!!??!!?

832. God Hates the World

Comment #53142 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 4:16 pm

j
Yep, they dont get it that all their stuff is subjective and prone to personal bias. To them, it is a self fulfiling prophecy. For example, you pray for 100 people with ME, 1 gets better, therefore because you prayed, it was god. For all the rest, god had hs reasons (for their own good) why he did not heal the rest. Of course, ME may be a pshychological disease, and the drugs used to treat it (serotonin uptake inhibitors) affects brain chemistry (actually, LSD acts on a particular serotonin receptor) More important, people recover spontaneously all the time. Another friend (an atheist) had it and with in a few months of recovering, climbed mount kenya.
I'm having a discussion about that on my mates blog at the moment. Seems they must be spouting this at church these days.
I've heard good things about your posts on DRs site, but I know if i read them I would need to get drawn in.
They cant deal with memes though.

833. God Hates the World

Comment #53138 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 3:55 pm

If your response is to Richard, I look forward to hearing it.

Ah Richard, I remember running rings around him. He thought gen 3:15 was proof gid knew about human eggs - talk about grasping at straws: 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

834. God Hates the World

Comment #53103 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 11:09 am

You know, he could be an atheist 5th columnist....

Or in the closet. It's not that healthy to be obsessed with RD. At least it shows he has them worried, so TGD worked

835. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53101 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 10:53 am

Bizzarro,
Try actually reading about evolution. Go read about the alx-4 gene in dogs, read about dupication of opsin genes and subsequent mutation for just one of many examples of increased information as you call it. Read up about radiation in lake malawi and lake victoria cichlids. the piss all over darwin's finches (which are still good examples.
Lack of intermediates? are you taking the piss? Also arguements generally revolve around whether a fossil is nore like A OR B. Not whether it is an intermediate or not, Statements like yours are typical of those who misrepresent evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html for a tiny fraction of intermediates

836. God Hates the World

Comment #53096 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 10:14 am

Hi Paul, If the religious are censoring your reason loaded views, you could post it here.

837. God Hates the World

Comment #53021 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 2:59 am

What I do dispute and what I strongly object to is RD posting this video here in defence of his views.

I know that believing in a god you have no real evidence for can cause you to losen your standards, but generally, if someone makes a claim, it is good to have proper evidence to back it up. The better the evidence, the more likely the claim is true. Dawkins has a claim and he has evidence. Maybe the fact that this can be verified is what you really object to. I would rather see you attack the perpetrators of this crime, and not the person who has raised our awareness of the problem

838. God Hates the World

Comment #52941 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Dr Benway
You remind me of Amos 5:15 Hate evil, love good,

Liars and abusers are bad, but I cant quite bring myself to hate David (sorry dude, I know you really want me to- but you can still carry on pretending if you want - that's nice of me to let you, isn't it)
Acording to god, homos are bad, but I cant hate them either.

However, it is good to marry a hot virgin that you rape ( deut 22:28-29) and kill your family for worshiping other gods ( deut 13:6-9 ) - think I'll pass on those too.

I must be an evil c**t to not agree with this

This may come as a shock to Dave, but Solomon never actually wrote the book of ecclesiastes. Most proper scholars attribute it to an author during the babylonian exile

839. God Hates the World

Comment #52933 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Oh David, I think you have just shown that you really like confrontation "I took my first vow - not to answer someone who really struggles with such hatred. It only adds fuel to the fire...."

really? telling people who struggled to keep their faith and are looking to engage in debate that they are simple, need therapy, are on wacky baccy etc is not fanning the flames?
Where is the hatred? Not taking shit from someone who are abusive and lies - repeatedly is not hate. Hate is deuteronomy 28. Hate is stalking Dawkins and using a human tragedy - the little girl in the video to try feebly to score some points.
What exactly do you think i hate? You have said christians in the past, but I have good christian friends, so tha cant be it. I have told you I dont hate you. I think you are sad and talk shit, but wouldn't wish some biblical hate on you. So what is it? Call me cynical, but a pattern emerges here: when you cant mount a counter challenge you throw insults and convince yourself that you have the moral high ground , so challenges dont need to be answered. I would say that qualifies as acting like a prick. There is also a subtle implication in the command "stop being a prick", it implies you may actually be able to improve your behaviour - perhaps I'm giving credit where it is not due though. I also asked you if this video should not be exposed. I presume you from your silence and reaction that you would rather hush it up

840. God Hates the World

Comment #52924 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Coel
Hope you dont mind me butting in

"Atheism" is not an agreed set of doctrines, it is merely an absence of certain doctrines. There is no reason at all why I should agree with or feel responsible for some other atheist. "

I'm afraid that this 'we believe nothing' line is beginning to wear a bit thin. You do believe lots of things and have a great many presuppositions. Empiricism, materialism and like sheep you all fall for the 'ooh look how bad and evil the Phelps are, they are just where Christianity inevitably leads you'.

Firstly, where is the evidence that we all believe this is the logical conclusion of christianity. You really hate atheists and will misrepresent them at every opportunity. I interpret your resposes as if you think you're not responsible for other Atheists, well I'm not responsible for other christians (and christians they are, they confess jesus as their saviour and belive in their hearts that god raised him from the dead(rom 10:9) or are you going to claim salvation through deeds and not through faith? The bible is so inconsistant that you could claim both. Anyway, the bible says you are responsible for policing other believers. Particularly where they are in danger of truning others away - I would have thought a minister should have known that, but experience is constantly making me re-evaluate this position.
eg Hebrews 3:13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.

All of 1 cor 12

I cor 6: 5 I am saying this to shame you. Isn't there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? 6 But instead, one believer[a] sues another—right in front of unbelievers!

841. God Hates the World

Comment #52915 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 1:47 pm

David, taking a holiday is the sun eh? taking the family? what an extravagance? You should have given the money to the poor and followed jesus Matt 19:16-34 oh wait, he doesnt do that either Jn 12:1-8

our presuppositions as you like to call them are sound rational ones your's are not. I could ask you to justify your position, but experience tells me you wont. I presume because you cant, but i'm always willing to be proven wrong.

How do you know that you are reading in the "correct" context? Afterall, jesus said (assuming he existed here just for the sake of arguement) that the most important command was to love god. Well, god specifically hates gays, moabites, shellfish etc. How is his killing of babies justified in ex 11? how can you possibly say that is loving? was it love that said kill homosexuals? was it love that told joshuah to kill everything in jerico? Was it love that prompted god to threaten folk into starvation where he specifically said they would eat their own children (eg deut 28)? What about intervening to save jepthah's saughter? Was it love that allowed slavery and not condemn it? Does love turn rivers to blood threaten to send wild animals to eat your babies?

this is a nice verse ezekiel 5: 16 When I shoot at you with my deadly and destructive arrows of famine, I will shoot to destroy you. I will bring more and more famine upon you and cut off your supply of food. 17 I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will leave you childless. Plague and bloodshed will sweep through you, and I will bring the sword against you. I the LORD have spoken."

Is this how you would dicipline your son if you saw him idolising carmen electra instead of god?

Hell, lets show the "loving" bits of deut 28:

16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [a] 21 The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror and an object of scorn and ridicule to all the nations where the LORD will drive you.

38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them. 40 You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off. 41 You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity. 42 Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

43 The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.

45 All these curses will come upon you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the LORD your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. 46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, 48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

49 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the LORD your God is giving you.

53 Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.

58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God- 59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. 63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. 67 In the morning you will say, "If only it were evening!" and in the evening, "If only it were morning!"-because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. 68 The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

Truely sweet!
BTW How do these people differ from those you say god loves? in your eyes they are all sinners

842. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52880 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 11:19 am

I like the Egyptian account of creation: Amun Ra had a chug http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/amun.html wonder if they will teach that in catholic schools?

843. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52840 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 7:31 am

Tyler
sent this.
"I would like to take issue with John Lundberg. There is so much evidence to support evolution, it is difficult to chose which to include in a sound bite. There is the fossil record, where life starts out simple and becomes more complex. There are the so-called intermediate fossils that link different groups of animals, and they occur at the correct time in history: you don't find fossil birds in rocks older than the oldest fish. We see plenty of intermediates linking the groups in between: Tiktaalik linking fish and amphibians; Proterogyrinus linking amphibians to reptiles; Apsisaurus, linking early reptiles to the group that gave rise to the dinosaurs, and Achaeopteryx linking dinosaurs to birds. These are a tiny proportion of the number of known intermediates.



We also have compelling DNA evidence. One example I like is the Ice fish of Baffin Island. They have no haemoglobin. They do however contain the decaying remains of haemoglobin genes. The obvious explanation: they evolved from species that did have these genes. One final point, every time an antibiotic resistant bug appears, that's evolution!

Dr William Sands

Clydebank"

Keep us posted of responses

Cheers

Billy

844. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52779 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 4:10 am

quetz

I'm sending you a PM

J
I know what you mean about addiction

845. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52624 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Lee and Theo
Concerning the flood, I read on a christian's blog a totally obvious question.Why did people with boats not survive?
Simple but devastating

846. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52623 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Hi J

I get the impression that David tightly controls the site now. I thik I challenged some of to question why they believed what they did. I often pushed them to back up statements like "the bible was never meant to be a science text book" or think about whether messianic prophecies were actually about jesus. This was the thing that really blew it all appart for me. There were plenty of other reasons not to believe, but the MP's made me certain that it was all made up.

I do have one friend who is not affraid to be challenged (to an extent) He accepts there are problems in the bible at any rate, but still believes they must be resolvable. At least he is not an inerrantist. You generally find that the people who left the faith know more about the bible than many believers - probably because they honestly struggled to believe, but found they couldn't. I distinctly got the impression from DR on anther thread that he did not know the bible called homosexuality an abomination and worthy of stoning. I think I know what buttons to press with him now, but despite dangling the bait, I really hope he does some serious reflection.He is in a power of authority, and his church are well known for their bigoted attitudes and hell fire preaching. By denying it goes on, he is part of the problem.
Anyway, if you want to try some moderates, my friend has just started a blog, he says he wants an interactive forum (members of my old church read it, so I'm going to start posting on it too), so if you are both in agreement, I'll give you the URL

847. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52617 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Good news about the students Epeeist. I used to work with someone who competed in the olympics - Elaine Kellet. Do you know her?

I might saunter on over and check this guy out. Might be entertaining :-)

848. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52592 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 11:43 am

Hi J,

I'm sure there was domeone on DR troll site who said that he was helping them deconvert. You could try converts corner. It's at the top left of the page. There certainly have been plenty of folk who have said they reasoned themselves into athiesm. Myself and JC Samuelson on this thread are examples, so there is always hope. Mark is the only guy I've come across that tries to present positive evidence (oh and Shaun). Too many dogmatic theists with the intention of denying evolution or preaching visit this site.

How is everyone here anyway? All good I hope

849. God Hates the World

Comment #52523 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 7:36 am

Hi J,
I think all those threads have been removed now. The site has been redesigned and heavily moderated. I was going to post on it recently, but my old log on details did not work. That coupled to the fact David has deleted posts of mine and Martin Gill's in particular made me decide it wasn't worth the effort of typing a lengthy post that would not be published - makes you wonder why he changed it really. I was even polite too, as not everyone there is abusive.

Interestingly, one of the posts that kept getting removed was one of his abusive posts that I posted in a thread where he made deliberately inaccurate statements about atheists

David, plenty of atheists have had minor quibbles with Dawkin's here. You are just being dishonest again, because I know someone had one on your own troll thread here.

BTW Mark Tauton's thread is 25 (nearer26)pages long, and I think most people on it (incuding Mark) are enjoying and benefiting from it. It is proper exchange after all - something David doesn't do http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

I hope he is able to come back soon

850. God Hates the World

Comment #52511 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 6:52 am

I really dont seee why David is so offended - it must be a religious thing or his pathological hatred of atheists.

Surely the important thing is that we should all be united in wanting to prevent the young girl being poisoned by this shit.

This won't get through DR's skull, but RD was right to show this as evidence of what religion can do (note use of the word can david).
I remember when I was living in St Andrews (only 10 miles from David), a fundie (called Mrs Ross - know her David?) used to go around all the doors. Her opening line was not hello, it was "you're a sinner" What a disgusting message. What if a young child opened the door, what if she started prattling on about Hell to the child like happened to the member of David's church that I know