901. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59881 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 2:38 am

Billy- you might be interested to know that Wee Flea has returned.

Where? Is he Fides in disguise?

902. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59878 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 2:15 am

You pasted a quote of mine where I was clearly talking about me and then used it to say I was talking about you. I wasn't by the way. Let me make it clearer, read back through the quote, when it says 'I', that means me, not you.

Yes, but in the context it is far from unreasonable to assume that you were also refering to me. Particularly when preceded by your worzel comment.

Do enlighten me, what are these straw men to whom you refer?

903. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59730 by BillySands on July 30, 2007 at 12:59 pm

J
Theists just dont get humble. Moses, the supposed author of the pentateuch had this to say about himself: "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth." (num 12:3)

904. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59729 by BillySands on July 30, 2007 at 12:51 pm

When I can't work something out and I need to, I ask someone to help me (for example a plumber with a plumbing difficulty, I don't start building an Ark). However, if I don't need to know (for example, how to build an aeroplane), I just accept that someone else does (and then I buy my ticket). It's called humility to accept that one doesn't know everything (and also that one cannot know everything).

Fides, are you for real? You make my point perfectly by assuming that there was something wrong with me – that I did not seek help. Amazing Sherlock, how did you manage to presume what I did and get it so spectacularly wrong? How stupid are you to assume that? a perfect example of the theists deluded way of thinking concerning doubt. For your information, I saw ministers, Christian friends, various members of my church, and other churches and none of them could answer my doubts. After much discussion and an inability of the others to come up with a reasonable answer, I was told to just trust god. Hell, I was even told by a few that I must have some unconfessed sins on several occasions. Even asking god to show what they were got no answer. What higher help could I have sought? I hope one day you learn to think for yourself too.

Looks like your straw man is a smouldering heap of napamled bullshit.

But thanks for giving others an insight into deluded thinking

905. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59670 by BillySands on July 30, 2007 at 5:15 am

Tell me, someone, why is it that people seem unable to distance themselves from inculcated belief systems in order to embrace reason (or another point of view)?

I agree with what Quetz said (he is my new god after all)

Faith is one of those things you just know is true, and you feel it too. You dont look at problems with your faith logically. You know it is true, so the problem lies with you. You know that god is perfect and always knows best. This is your starting point in viewing and interpreting the world/bible/human nature/ relationships/ suffering etc. When you cant work out something you go "I dont know, but god does and I'm sure he has a good reason for not explaining it to me" This is mental slavery and it is not good for you. I believe this holds a lot of people back and stops them taking charge of their lives. So, if you know god knows best (and you buy the lie that you dont if you arew struggling with faith) when you approach every challenge, it is hard to see the godless simplicity responsible for the challenge - be it natural disasters, unfairness, biblical contradictions, god not doing what he says he will etc.
I guess I got out because I reached challenge overload and I started realising that my problems with faith were not my fault and that I did do everything that I could to stay faithful. Looking back now, I realise just how toxic that position of faith was. I now know that shit happens because it just does and that I am the only one in control of my life and destiny. If I succeed or fail at something, be it relationships, career or sport, then it is me alone who fails or wins, and that is the most empowering thing that I have found in atheism.

I contend that I am able to listen to and evaluate a point of view or a discussion without adopting its premise(s). Is this merely an intellectual trick that I have taught myself? smiles>/i>,

If you go back and change the last part of this from >... to <... it should remove the italics from the rest of your post

906. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59461 by BillySands on July 29, 2007 at 6:25 am

It certainly beats wearing a dead jewish blasphemer on a stick.

Bizzaro, How's those pesky toothed chickens going down with your creationist delusion? You seem to have run away without addressing the issue

907. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59419 by BillySands on July 29, 2007 at 2:35 am

I feel like that about maladaptive ways of thinking and coping that I have abandoned because I finally realized they were wrong and hurting me. I find it irritating that I had to go through so much of my life feeling distress over these. But I've tried to look at it from a more positive light- that at least I finally got it and that part of the learning was in the journey.

Yes, it is only once you get rid of the negative crap of faith that you can start seeing things in a positive light. I have often thought that this aspect of faith is like a mental ilness.

908. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59108 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 11:06 am

The failing must lie with the individual

That is sooooo true. It is also bad for yoiur esteem, you are constantly doing something wrong and god is rejecting you until you sort it out. No matter how often you ask, he never tells you what it is, and you keep fretting over it. Of course, I now know why he never answered - just wish it hadn't taken so bloody long to find out. It reminds me of a comment I made here on learning the will of my TV set through praying to it http://richarddawkins.net/article,1399,Praying-to-a-milk-jug,Why-Wont-God-Heal-Amputeescom#55420

909. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59101 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 10:17 am

Strange no fuss is made when christians want to burn TGD - as I saw on David Robertsons' site once. At least it's better than burning people like they used to to. I wonder when god will issue the command to burn atheists and use TGD as kindling?

910. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59086 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 8:27 am

Northern Bright
That was one of the best posts I've read for a long time.

Veronique
That's a great idea about the quotes. Haven't heard from the flea. J has been posting on his site, but hasn't heard from him for a while. Maybe he's gone to Twatt for good. One of my friends went to see him at his book signing in Edinburgh recently. I never knew he was doing onein glasgow or I would have went along. How could I have missed such high impact news? I'm aware that Posh spice apparently has cellulite, but not that wee flea was signing toilet paper so that kind of puts it into perspective really

911. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59056 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 5:14 am

Well done! to get your whole brain back:-)

Thanks. I feel a lot better for it.

I love quotes, don't you?

Yes, and here's a whole load more http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/viewQuotes.php

Billy, help! Who said something to the effect:

When I was a child I spake as a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things.

It was the author/collective alledged to be Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:11

912. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #59053 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 4:28 am

I thought I could ether introduce some genes from thermophilic bacteria or cheat and ask you to sort it out. Good idea you gave me about heat resistant hydra. They can regenerate and you can sew an army from it's teeth

913. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #59049 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 4:08 am

Yes my LORD. The other guy in the video has had some modifications and combines all the above characteristics. He is busy cloning himself as we speak. The only problem is finding him enough mushy fruit to eat and stopping him cooking his progeny with his freakin' laser and eating them at the mo

914. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #59044 by BillySands on July 27, 2007 at 3:45 am

Yeah verily brother Lee. Anyone who is at all co-ordinated is an infidel. Slippy floors and not being able to see a bloody thing help the spirit of Quetz enter me. If I'm really lucky, I bang my head and he gives me a vision

915. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58907 by BillySands on July 26, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Hi Veronique, the faith thing got me at an early age. I was a believer up until about 5 years ago, but I guess I compartmentalised things to carry on believing. To quote Mark Twain: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so"

916. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58905 by BillySands on July 26, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Not only does quetz move in mysterious ways, but he posesses his followers with his spirit and makes them move in very mysterious ways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XV6hNCgLAU

917. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58762 by BillySands on July 26, 2007 at 4:02 am

I can imagine that one or more people on this thread who left behind a childhood-inculcated belief system, years and years ago, may have some vestige of 'understanding' what that belief felt like to live in.

I dont think the understanding diminishes. If anything, I think I have a greater understanding of what faith is. I also have a greater understanding of why this faith is an illogical position.

918. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58755 by BillySands on July 26, 2007 at 3:40 am

An Omnipotent God, and THIS WORLD is the best he can do?

Yeah he could have created a world without earthquakes or volcanoes - he could have made elements that dont decay and release radiation - oh yes, and he could have omitted to make maggots that feast on living brains etc

919. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58752 by BillySands on July 26, 2007 at 3:37 am

why then, why pilgrims, why?

Erm, stab in the dark here, because god doesn't exist?
Surely the faithfull should be celebrating the fact they have gone to heaven.

920. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

Quetz,
Or even BREWce Tea

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

921. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

922. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

923. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

924. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

925. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

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

926. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

927. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

928. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

929. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #58099 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Ah, Just the Mutt's nuts

930. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

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

931. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

932. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

933. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

934. Darwin or Design

Comment #57596 by BillySands on July 20, 2007 at 4:59 am

Oh well… looks like I'm late onto a debate again

That's what happens when you buy a watch made by a blind watchmaker - design flaws :-)

935. Darwin or Design

Comment #57583 by BillySands on July 20, 2007 at 2:58 am

If I do, would you object to my reposting your answers on this thread?

I think many of us would read read them. I dont know why he doesn't want to discuss on a forum that challenges his views. There isafter all no better way to test the validity of your views than getting your toughest critics to attack it. Good luck Quetz and keep us posted if you do. Just a slight word of caution though, I have personally seen creationists take things from such debates out of context and use them as propaganda. This is the standard that many stoop to http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1351,Rival-to-evolution-may-enter-schools,Adam-Forest#53288 Although I believe there is an article on this site about an honest creationist, so there are some

936. Darwin or Design

Comment #57582 by BillySands on July 20, 2007 at 2:41 am

Nope. I wont be goaded by you give it up.

Really, so what are you doing answering me then? You are the one trying to goad me by suggesting cowardice. I've displayed my willingness here - you ran off to mummy

I don't care for a debate I think it is a waste of time especially in a place like this.

So why are you here? You are being a bit petulant here. You were invited to explain your position by quetz. You can always put your fingers in your ears with anyone you dont want to engage with. I suspect it is a symptom of the fact that ID has no evidence and all it's arguements have been blown appart

Only because Darwin or Design got mentioned in the news article.

But you expect us to play by your rules. Lets face it, you didn't exactly get off to a good start here now. Did you?

Not at all. You seem sufficiently confused that you think ID is not compatible with common descent. If you want a reasoned discussion at least give the impression that you understand the issue well enough not to spout complete nonsense.

Ooh, sounds like I'm being told of by an angry gerbil here. Tremble tremble. I am aware that Behe claims that he believes in common decent, although his latest book makes me wonder about that. The problem is that Darwinism does not allow for things like eyes, flagella, blood clotting, VDJ recombination etc to be designed. Like most creationists, you are ignorant of the basics of Darwinian evolution. It is incompatible with the idea of design

Actually your use of the term "evolution denier" is an allusion to the concept of Holocaust Denial.

Actually, the term evolution denier refers to some one who denies the overwhelming evidece for evolution and instead prefers to so submit to ignorance and proclaim "god did it". How you got on to Hitler says more about you than me.

Have a nice day.

PS come back if you actually have anything to contribute. From what I've seen of you so far, you wont actually present a case, but will just deliver ad homs, twist meanings and assume to know what people think.
Auchtung! Wo meine Stulpenstiefel sind? (holocaust denial - really!)

937. Darwin or Design

Comment #57520 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I've offered to make a stronger case in a more neutral forum. Should I take it as cowardice on your part that you have not taken that up ?

Sounds like you're the one running away matey. If I came on your forum and presented no evidence, then you could criticise me. If you wanted to debate, you could have done it here. You are on our forum afterall. We have seen nothing in your posts to make it look worth our while - typical of creationists really.

Not that your later comment indicates that you are open to reason or understand the issue though

Ah, another unjustified ad hom (creationists are good at this and poor on data) It is even more amazing that you say this as I have just told you what will change my mind. If you had such evidence, there would be no arguement - tell you what, I'll settle for the silurian instead. I wonder what you would take as evidence that you are wrong? You have been asked this politely by Quetz amongst others - and evaded responding. Could it be that you are actually evolving into chicken?

This pretty much violates the spirit of Godwin's Law.

Only if I was comparing you to the Nazis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't. I really must stop being willing to be swayed by evidence, so I can fit your ignorant stereotyping - like I say I dont see any evidence that it would be worth debating you
I'm really off to bed now.

938. Darwin or Design

Comment #57509 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 3:07 pm

If this guy actually presented any real evidence, then he would be able to have a debate. ID is nothing more than a wilful submission to personal ignorance. This has been clearly demonstrated time and time again for all Behe's claims. As an immunologist, I cringed when he said that evolution could never account for antibody recombination - what a poorly thought out and sweeping statement. Even then there were folk working on this field. Then come the dover county ID trial, he was presented with wads of data that he wasn't even aware of. Ignorance is not a reason to believe in design.

Rant over, I'm off to bed

PS to give the evolution deniers a chance, I'll settle for rabbits in the ordovician instead of the precambrian - that gives them an extra few hundred million years of fossil record to play with - I wont hold my breath

939. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57393 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

I personally dont have a problem with attacking those who attack me or my values. I'm not going to stay quiet when there are creationist retards out there spouting lies, or when some brain dead moron says that "the devil is the author of secular values y'all - By the way bud, have you already got dibs on yer sister or can I have a shot? Let's nuke them muslims sodomites!"

I also find that debating reasonable types makese me even more aware of how wrong it is to believe in gods.

940. Darwin or Design

Comment #56733 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 4:23 am

BILLY SPEAK TO US!

Go forth and bring me gifts of orange sherbet.

Actually has anyone seen CJ22's new avatar - that does provide some evidence for resurrection - ooh err missus ;-)

But I am Displeased that Billy is not crediting me with his recovery.

Ah The concussion is gone and I now acknowledge quetzdidit. He foresaw it and placed me next to the hospital. By the way, can you fix it for me to meet the model in CJ22s picture - that I may clone her for the good of all mankind - and your glory

941. Darwin or Design

Comment #56728 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 4:15 am

Phew, that was a close call guys - dont worry I've not been ressurected or anything like that, I just work next door to the local hospital. As usuall, there is a rational explanation.

942. Darwin or Design

Comment #56719 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 3:33 am

Big Yawn for the sciphishow.
Go find me some rabbits in the precambrian and then you may have something worth listening to - oh no, I've admitted evidence will sway me - but I'm supposedly dogmatic and religious - does not compute does not compute -BOOOM!

943. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56717 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 3:26 am

I see the petition was a christian one - how tolerant of them

944. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56532 by BillySands on July 16, 2007 at 7:04 am

Hi Mark, was bracing myself for an enormous reply there.
I do believe there is quite abit of truth in the history of the bible - although, like any document written with an agenda, there are many errors too. There are anachronisms concerning Grerar and Moab. JC previously pointed out an error in the title of Nebuchadnezzar. The exile only lasted 49 years (not 70) and Sennacherib actually won in 701 BCE, and certainly did not die. There is also the date of the nativity, and Archaeological evidence points to jericho not having a wall at the time of joshua, and Ai was not inhabited then either. The Kingdom of David seems to have been grealy exagerated in size - to name a few off the top of my head, so I dont think it is a totally reliable history book - then there are the creation accounts and the flood - those never happened. In fact, the flood is clearly refuted

945. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56340 by BillySands on July 15, 2007 at 6:26 am

Mark,
Sorry to increase your workload, but that Pilate business has got me wondering, what exactly was the case against the existence of Babylon. Shaun mentioned this before as an example of how sceptics were wrong in the past. From what I can see the existence of Babylon was always well supported. I worry this may be an attempt by christians to pretend they have one over us, when no such serious claim was ever made - just like Pilate. I certainly am not accusing you of dishonesty here, but sometimes things we trust turn out to be false when we check them out properly.

946. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56157 by BillySands on July 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Lee

"I will have to cut my hair short…. NNNNooooooo"

I should think so too

1 cor 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

I'm allowed long hair because I'm an apostate and going to hell

947. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55984 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

So if that is Samson in the Judges quote, what prophesy is Matthew referring to in his gospel? I am going cross eyed...

As well you should, but that doesn't stop apologists claiming it is about jesus. In Comment #55847 I mention the return from Egypt to fulfil that prophecy. However, click on the link to hosea 11:1-2 and you will see that the son here is not jesus, but the sinful nation of Israel - another attempt by Matt to make jesus appear to be divne

948. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55979 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 4:57 am

Hi Quetz,
I think they are separate, and the verse is about Samsom, but that has never prevented christians trying to claim a verse about someone else is supposed to be about jesus - Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2 being good examples. It all seems that the life of jesus was constructed around other (non relevant) prophecies in an attempt to make him appear to be divine.
I have seen a few sites where fundies (usually barking mad inerrantists) claim the verse about samson is about Jesus and nazareth though - This truely is clutching at straws.
I would be interesting to hear Mark's take on it.

949. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55967 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 3:56 am

I found the inscription its a bit like saying witches are real because Salem exists really

Be sure to get your favorite colour right or else :-)

Thanks for the gift J - I found Danielos too "different" to get involved with, but hats off to those who had the patience

950. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55954 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 3:03 am

Hey bizzaro, we are still waiting to hear you explain chicken's teeth on the inferior design thread