951. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47179 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 10:49 am

Devolved, I'm afraid that I am going to have to call you an idiot. Read Robert's link properly. Also let me take just one point to show what a total ignoramous you are:

An 'evolutionary feature' of ArticAFPG is described as 'Convergent evolution'. This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution—almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it.

Firstly, Convergent evolution refers to two unrelated organisms evolving similar strategies to solve a similar problem eg the shape of fish and dolphins. Secondly, the similarities argue for relationships, not the other way round. If youu want messy relationships, try the family tree(s) of jesus (btw jude 1:14 says Enoch was the 7th generation from adam, everywhere else says he was the 6th, and you believe this stuff is the word of god 2 tim 3:16. The book of Enoch is quoted by jude, so we can assume it is the word of god too. Epeeist I'm affraid Enoch makes a mockery of tour lifes work "This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5)."

Sorry dude

Devolved, address the opsin gene link.

I'll end with an analogy. There are four bikes in my garage. One of them is new (my wife bought it yesterday). If tomorrow I built another 'new' bike by taking bits from the four already there it would be 'new' in a different way to my wife's. A 'new' bike assembled from existing bits of others. What is not immediately clear to me from the article is in what sense 'newness' is being defined.

You could weld two together and make a tandem!

Tell me, what new features do you expect to see evolve and why? Epeeist has a lot of questions remaining to be answered. Please answer questions and finish something before moving on.

The thing is, I think I know the point you are trying to argue, the trouble is you dont, and no one takes you seriously

952. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47172 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 10:07 am

surely the sabbath was only one day, and the rest were billions- its obvious if you drink a mixture of meths and paintstripper.
I agree and also think these fundies do serve a purpose and allow others to see the flaws in theistic thinking. A few people have said elsewhere that wee flea has helped them overcome their faith, so there is hope. Funny thing is, that doesn't stop him comming back. If you electrocute a snail often enough, it at least learns to stay in its shell.
David, How many people have left your church because of the atheists who visited your site before you changed it?
And why is homosexuality worth the death sentence?

The can simply say that their God-inspired concience tells them what is right.

Which is exactly why the world would be safer without religion.

Stan type blockquote between the <> symbols

953. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47168 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 9:35 am

Been away a few days. Have any new dinosaurs been found yet devolved?
I asked you a lot of questions you ignored. i would also like an answer concerning opsin genes. You make me laugh - and not in a good way. I see you still dont have a clue.

have another gratuitous biblical contradiction for a laugh Jeremiah 36:30
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David.

vs

II Kings 24:6
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

Oh and this guy was supposed to be an ancestor of jesus too - well according to matthew anyway. luke disagrees

Not one page later, in citing "problems" for gene duplication, the paper mentions that "Zhang, in a study of gene duplication, concluded that many duplicated genes become degenerate, nonfunctional pseudogenes and, in only 'rare cases', 'a new function may evolve', as is believed to have occured in the douc langur monkey."

vs

Creationist scientists (including me) generally assume that God would not create purposeless genes in different primates, and that God did not independently disable the same genes in humans and nonhuman primates during the Curse.

from the same site. I agree with Robert, make him read.

Is anyone actually swayed in favour of devolved's position with all his bullshit links?

954. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46716 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 9:00 am

I dont know if he knows, He loves his monarch but hates god save the queen for being too proddy. In some rspects he is like wee flea who doesnt know if he thinks the poe is the antichrist or not.

Actually, I have a friend who got a lift from a wee free minister near kintail. He made the mistake of asking if he was a priest. There then followed a long rant about the catholic church being the whore of babylon

Have you tried sending your question into the sunday post?

Answer is obvious. Burn him in the whisky. Kill two satanic birds with one stone!

LOL (thats not loyal orange lodge by the way David) I better not forget my marsh mallows

955. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46710 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 8:25 am

Stan, I am actually spending the weekend with a guy called David Robertson, he his climbing his last munro. The trouble is, there is going to be a catholic there - who has a gay brother, maybe the other david robertson could tell me the best way to burn him. I thought Brahan seer style in a tar barrel on top of stob na broige - after he has carried the whisky up of course. What do you think?

Maybe I could just put some honey on his head and let my army of gay fruit flies bum him

956. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46680 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 4:25 am

BaronOchs

BillySands isn't a christian minister supposed to conduct himself with gentleness and dignity regardless of whether it will be reciprocated?

Absolutely. Especially with doubuters. They are supposed to be corrected with gentleness. I thought I was as certain as you could be that god didn't exist when I first came across David, now I realise it is possible to be considerably more convinced - Oh well, if god exists, he will at least throw David in a pond with a millstone around his neck (matt 18:6)

I ask "Reverend" Robertson wouldn't he be a bit embarassed or ashamed, if we distributed half the stuff he spews out here, amongst his congregation?

Interesting that he said he did not encourage his congregation to join in the debate. I also linked this comment of his on his own site and he removed it - several times

Philip, Man makes god in his own image, therefore, I am God and you cant prove othervise BWWWahhahahah

957. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46667 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:42 am

Philip, It prevents cells making energy and you die. I am going to make some homosexual fruit flies to plague david - all you have to do is fiddle with their genes - ooh err missus: a gene called fruitless in particular.

All in the name of fundamental atheism!

958. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46666 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:39 am

Hi BaronOchs,
There is a great deal of religious hatred in the west coast of Scotland: catholics vs protestants. However, we dont see atheists going about kicking in people because of what they believe

959. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46663 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:35 am

Sorry for butting in guys- long incubations at work today

the only reason I did not include hurricanes and other events such as earthquakes, was simply because of space. If I go on to do other videos now will look at the nature of evil and its impact upon the world.
and yes I do believe that the nature of evil has an impact upon the argument from design.

Really! Are you then saying that earthquakes, volcanos and disease did not exist before man?

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old.

Can you give any evidence about the age of the earth? Your bible says it is young and flat afterall. Do you also believe that light existed before the sun and all animals were vegetarian? Justify why the bible is an "old universe" book, or are you just graping on to scientific truths even though they contradict the bible?

Dont forget to answer my questions on homosexuality first - they take poriority (I've got a bet on about your response. Lets see if I win a mars bar)

960. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46654 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 2:52 am

I'm also reminded of the story where jesus refused to sell the expensive perfume to help the poor (john 12:1-8) even although this was wrong by his own admission (Matt. 25:41-46). Its not just Paul and David who contadict themselves then.

Are we to assume then, that you made a vow that the pope was the antichrist, but you didn't actually make it? Are there any psychologists reading? If so, what do you make of David?

961. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46650 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 2:43 am

David

Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

Another dodge of the question David. Did you or did you not say you would happily answer my question? I can only assume you are a liar. All I get is evasion and more questions from you. Now answer the questions concerning homosexuality. And explain why in your opinion my answer is simplistic - particularly because you only justify hating it because the bible says so. I gave a valid reason why something is wrong. Now please do the same with homosexuality, and refrain from the simplistic approaches you are accustomed to spouting. BTW even "normal" sex that you consider a gift from god is not without its dangers - Silly Boy!

The rest of the posts are a waste – especially Billy's hilarioius analysis of the Bible!

Chuckle chuckle. I guess you dont have a response then. My you must be warped if you think all that stuff in the bible is good. If someone attacked my invisible and immaginary friend like that, I'd want to defend him - unless of coure it cant be defended.
BTW have you seen how many of Dawkins' books are in borders - more than in the entire religion section! I never saw your ill concieved pile of circular logic and vitriol though. Saw McGrath's pamplet, but not yours - mind you, I never went into the toilets

Why do you insist on calling me a liar? And refuse to engage with anything of substance and I say?

See above! When did you ever say anything of substance?

Please give examples of atheist fundamentalists, then think about what your lot do (ahem swingpark). Need to go and fill a creationist biochemist with a mitrocondrial uncoupler now

962. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46500 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Cheers scottishgeologist. It's just a little something I knocked together. I now imagine David riddled with holes, although, there cant be too much left of him. He has already been mercilessly gored on the twin horns of reason and morality.
Justdont get me started on felicity kendal and cliff richard :-)

I hadnt noticed that you posted a comment about the Brahan Seer (in that unbelievably long Christadelphian thread) - fascinating tale that is - I have a book by Elizabeth Mackenzie which goes into it in depth - of course a lot of it is unprovable, and one of the suggestions was that he was "made up" after the events happened.

Now, who does that sound like? And there are no autographs either. At least they have a proper light house on the point now. The seer was always a good warm up story for frightening freshers with supernatural tales in bothies, and of course people never think maybe it was made up afterwards
It was Kenneth Mackenzie the seer worked for. Is Elizabeth a decendant?
Corylus I find this a good site for finding verses that i cant remember http://bibletab.com/
It also gives you the original hebrew and greek

Steve I dont really visit the forums. I think there may be some on http://www.exchristian.net

963. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46460 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 10:26 am

Steve, this is becoming a good thread for some decent debate. Mark is a nice chap, although I dont think he will be back for a while http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

David, keep off it, I'm actually enjoying an intelligent debate here

964. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46458 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 10:08 am

SRWB

do you think David the Flea won't try to rationalize his way out of all that?

I expect to be either ignored or called a fundie with a deep hatred of christians. What I dont expect is a rational response. It is posted more for the benefit of those who don't know how evil the god of the bible actually is.

965. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46439 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 8:16 am

It became apparent at a meeting of the Glasgow brights last night (and some posts here), that there are some things they never teach you in sunday school. So, I thought I would redress the balance:

Biblicists often claim that because we all seem to share certain moral values, there must be an external provider of these values (their god) that fixes them in the hearts of man (Rom.1:19). This is an idea that CS Lewis discusses in "Mere Christianity". If this were true, then all people would be able to make the same moral judgements on a given topic. This is clearly not the case. One just has to think about the number of disagreements believers have amongst themselves (gay bishops (Think requirements for salvation) women priests (Think equality) and contraception (think HIV in Africa)) are a few examples. Christians usually respond to this by saying that people have their own agendas and are not following God (in other words everyone is wrong but me). The trouble is that both sides usually make valid biblical arguments. The real problem however is that the bible is self contradictory on so many issues, that you cannot use it as a guidebook. Here is an example of the contradictions concerning homosexual bishops: the bible says that homosexuals must be killed (Lev. 20:13), Jesus never gave any instructions to the contrary. If he did, he would be contradicting God. Compare this to Paul's statement that all things are permissible; even the ones that are not good for you (1Cor.10:23). Not one to be consistent though, Paul also orders a congregation to kick a sinner out of their church (1 Cor.5:1-2) Paul also tells us that EVERYONE is a sinner (Rom. 3:9-18) so why single one group out? Yet again, Paul contradicts himself and other Christians on Rom.1:19 by informing us that rather than having God's laws written on their hearts, people actually need to be taught right from wrong (Rom. 10:13-14 and 2:21). Therefore, if even their holy book shows itself to be contradictory and inconsistent, then the idea of a morally guiding god is not a viable hypothesis.
Morality is not just a question of what you do, but why you do it. This is a common Christian response to apparent examples of moral behaviour in other animals. I do however strongly doubt that true intention based morality is a common theme in every day life. Try this thought experiment: imagine you are out and you walk past a tramp. He is a dirty-faced abusive alcoholic. His beard is encrusted with vomit, his breath stinks, and he smells of stale urine. His penis is also hanging out. What do you do? Most likely, you walk past him. You may even feel disgust and call the police. You may however throw some money at him out of pity, but that just hurts him more, because he will buy some alcohol with it. What you would not do (purely out of love for him) is take him home and help him sort out his life. But that is what Jesus tells you to do. To do otherwise is a sin (Matt. 25:41-46). The very few (if any) who would genuinely take him home, I salute you, but how many of you would also be Christian?
Now on to the stuff they don't teach you in Sunday school. Firstly, God set up man to fail. I say this because before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could not know that it was wrong to disobey this dictatorial and draconian god (Gen.3:5 and 22). To make matters even worse, he put the serpent in the garden to tempt these naïve people into disobeying him (Gen.3.1-6). God even make this evil creature in the first place (Gen.3:1). What a bastard! That shows as much parental responsibility as hiring a paedophile to baby-sit for you! Because of this situation, God condemns all mankind to die. What a thoroughly evil act. This is just the first of many examples of God punishing people for "sins" perpetrated by others (Ex. 11 (very disgusting slaughter of children) Is. 14-21-22 and Deut.5:9 for example). Imagine the police arresting you one night because your great grandfather was an Australian sheep rustler or a German concentration camp guard, it is just ludicrous. Most bizarrely, he even punishes people for being evil and audacious enough to be born to unmarried parents, or because they were born in the wrong place, like Moab (Deut.23:2-3). Bizarre, because he (through the birth of Jesus) is the bastard descendant of a bastard and a Moabite (Matt. 1:3-5, Gen.38, Ru. 4 and Matt. 1-18-19).
Not only has God created evil, he often uses it to harm others (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, and 1Sam. 16:33 to name a few). He even uses lies when it suits him (2Chron. 18:19-22). The bible also tells us that God hardens the hearts of those he wants to destroy, such as the Pharaoh (Ex. 14:1-31) and he does this after he has bullied the Egyptians into getting his way. It didn't seem to matter that his gripe was with an individual, because he was cruel to the whole nation. God basically took away Pharaohs' free will and lead him and others to destruction. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? If you are going to make Pharaoh do something, then why not just make him let the Israelites go free, with out all that nastiness, plagues and the unjustifiable killing of Egypt's first born? If all this was true, you have got think Pharaoh must have been incredibly thick not to let the Israelites go. The exodus probably never happened, but that doesn't change the immoral nature of the god of the bible. Remember, this is a God who for no good reason other than because he is God, prevents people from believing in him and being saved (Rom. 9:18).

The whole book of Joshua is about God ordained acts of ethnic cleansing, intolerance and genocide. Apparently God did not want his people contaminated with the practices of pagans. Again, this does not justify the extreme methods that God commanded, including infanticide. This means that if you are different, God does not want to forgive and enlighten you. In fact, he wants you and your babies dead. The contradiction with NT theology is glaringly obvious! Again, God's inability to be pleased (and inconsistency) is shown when he orders the Israelites to "righteously murder" the Midianites, including women and children (Num. 39). This very act however makes the Israelites impure and unable to approach God (Num. 31:19). In other words, God says "I am the God of righteousness, who cannot abide evil. Go and carryout this evil act that I demand or I will be angry, even although this act will make you repulsive to me."

God also doesn't have a problem with forcing people into cannibalism (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9). Neither does he have a problem with kidnapping women, nor with making them gifts to be used as sex slaves (Jud. 21:11-14). In fact, the god of the bible doesn't think too much of women at the best of times. These following attitudes make me sick! A rapist must marry his victim. Forcing someone to live with their abuser is just about the worst thing you can make them do, and to rub salt into the wounds, the victim's father must be compensated (Deut. 22:28-29). Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
So, what does he like then? Well, slavery for one, as long as the slaves are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46). Furthermore, he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for the welfare of slaves and their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). I like Gandhi's observation (pardon the pun) that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Should the master kill the slave, the punishment is not defined (Ex. 20:21) here, but if he kills an Israelite, he too must be killed (Ex. 21:12). God also likes perfectly formed people too. Any one deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:40, Jud. 11:29-40) In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness! The only time God actually behaves himself, is when he is worried about how he appears to others, and not because it is the right thing to do (Ex. 32:11-14 and Num. 14:15-20). In fact, the supposed sacrifice on the cross was (as many Christians will tell you) was for his own glory.
Moral god? Don't make me laugh! I'll tell you what does make me laugh however, is the story where Elisha gets God to make some bears maul and kill 42 young boys for calling him baldy (2Kin. 2:23-24). It's a good job that they didn't call him a specky big nosed feminist and abolitionist! If they had, the loving, forgiving and slow to anger god of the bible would probably eternally curse mankind (not again!), and make us all lesbian Moabite hunchbacks. That would give him a real reason to be cruel to us. Clearly, the nature of God does not give an explanation as to where the "better" aspects of human nature come from. Modern evolutionary approaches are now, just starting to provide an explanation for the existence of morality.
More krazee kristianity here: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

966. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46421 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 7:00 am

Another good point Baron, and we do know where he lives.

By the way, I think the KKK were actually formed by immigrants from David's church

967. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46417 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 6:52 am

1. I do not mischaracterise faith. Of course there are people who believe in the way that Dawkins describes. However there are a far greater number of people who believe in the way that I described. When Dawkins uses a definition of faith which no thinking or reasonable Christian, or indeed any version of Christianity would accept, then he is being deceitful.

Versus confession that the world was created in 6 days- What the ....


Of course David is lying about rationality and faith, because he never provides any evidence or engages in any meaningful debates - he just likes to insult and call us all fundies - he really is a very sad case. If he didnt believe in 6 day creationism himself, he could more profitably put his energies into talking round the fundies. At least fundies are honest, they stick to the teaching of their book. Afterall, god, paul, jesus and peter all say genesis is literal. David never provides a case otherwise.

968. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46388 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 5:02 am

Nice post Coel.
The lie that David put in his second letter that there is a witch hunt against creationist biochemists really annoys me. As a biochemist and one time theistic evolutionist, I provided evidence that that claim was a lie. He continues to perpetuate it and wont retract it.
That also points out another fallacy of David's: That does not work either. I can cite numerous examples of people who were atheists who have gone the other way.

Well I am one of a rappidly growing number who rejected god.

As for the science of the gaps (brain dead theistic propaganda mantra) it has a good track record of removing god - earthquakes, lightning, disease to name but a few

I hope scottishgeologist comes back and pushes him on his papal hypocricy - did he make that public declaration that the pope was the antichrist or not? (love the way you just go straight for the jugular with him)

969. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46371 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 3:49 am

Had me going there. I think I've been reading too many of devolved's posts that I missed the satire. Of course, that is more of a reflection on creationists than on me.
Pewkatchoo, I've sent you a PM

970. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46364 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 3:24 am

BTW 14 - thats a bit old for a paedophile. Remind me, what age was mary again? Looks like your god is a paedo by your reckoning. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could fin other paedos in the bible. Incidentally, What age were lots daughters that he offered to the mob and then shagged himself? And this was the guy that god deemed was the only one worth saving from soddom and gomorah. Hmmm, I smell bullshit!

BTW I love the way you dismantle the arguement for the non existence of jesus - NOT! What is your evidence that he existed? Personally, I dont rule out the posibility that he may have existed (but he wasn't what he is made out to be), but your rebuttal is pathetic. Here is some evidence that he didn't: the josephus passage is not in keeping with the words of the devout jew that we know he was. He calls jesus the christ and implies he was more than a man - blasphemy for a jew. The most reasonable explanation is that the early church made this up - for reasons we can go into if you really want to be educated - which I doubt. The paragraph also interupts the surrounding paragraphs.

971. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46358 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 3:02 am

Steve, I am quite happy to answer this. I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule. But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?

Liar I'm still waiting. Now justify why it is wrong. To remind you, here is my post again

"I dont neccessarily think polygamy is wrong if all involved are aware of it and happy with it, and there is love. Personally, it's not my bag. Paedophilia is quite obvious really. It is usually non consenting and breaks the trust of the victim, leading to hurt and problems in forming other functional relationships - particularly with members of the opposite sex. It often leads to feelings of worthlessness and takes away the ability to enjoy relational pleasure. Victims often resort to drugs, alcohol, promiscuity (leading to further feelings of worthlessness and self loathing) and self harm. About a third of victims develop eating disorders too. Victims are scarred and their right to a fulfilled life is violated. I could rattle on - my former church had loads of such victims, and I got myself involved with one, so I know what I'm talking about.
How does that compare to a loving homosexual situation?"

You are using faith to justify discrimination. Should a Homosexual be head of your church? What about a liar? thats wrong too isn't it - and everyone does it. So, why is homosexuality so evil that it carries a death sentence in the bible?

By the way, please give the Conway-morris quote in context. You were challenged on that before. Incidentally, he is an anglican. Quoting him is not evidence that christianity is not a meme. Please raise your game. Did you have christian parent? Did you get taught it from a young age? Do muslims have muslim parents? do they get taught it from an early age? etc...

972. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46351 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 2:46 am

Epeeist

The thing about these people is their inability to consider the consequences of their ideas. Err, light had to change its velocity to account for the fact that the universe is 6000 years old, but the furthest galaxies are over 13 billion light years away

The thing that makes me laugh is that these folk claim thart the universal constants are evidence of fine tuning, saying that the universe was set up for life. They claim that if the constants were different, life could not exist. Then they go and tweak them to suit their muppetry - effectivly negating their ow arguement. The bible tells us that rainbows only existed after the flood. As a physicist, could you give us some information on what that would mean for the universe?

973. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46350 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 2:32 am

Sorry Billy, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

No problem Nails- I'm glad of the break
Devolved, if you are still reading, why do you always run away?
I know all about sickle cell anemia - my first degree was in parasitology! But please tell me where any evolutionist claimed that the mutation was an increase in complexity? If something is adaptive and confers a new function, how is it a degradation? Again, you spout lies and avoid issues. Why dont you take the opsin gene challenge?

974. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46143 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 11:13 am

Steve
A while back, someone challenged him on this and his only response was it was wrong because the bible said so. He even made some derogtory comments about homosexual bishops elsewhere. I asked him to justify why it was wrong, and he said he would be happy to (comment 110 http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1137,Would-the-World-Be-Safer-Without-Religion,Gregg-Easterbrook-Beliefnetcom,page3#comments)

Still no reply. I suspect it is because he believes this for no other reason than because a silly book says so. He claims this is a source of moral absolutes. He asked me why paedophilia was wrong and I said why, so, I waiting to see what his response is - I presume he has no answer, but would like to see him being honest about the fact that his faith makes him have bad attitudes, and that the bible is full of bad laws

975. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46139 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 10:47 am

Hi BaronOchs,
It is just another example of selective and wishful theistic thinking.
I'm still waiting to hear a response from David on the morality of homosexuality, and would love to hear him explain the fact that he "confessed" the pope to be the antichrist, but says that he isnt. Oh well, I suppose it makes sense to him, I'll stick with a good old dose of clear thinking for now

976. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46123 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 9:35 am

You cant top David Attenborough on the arguement from beauty (which is of course subjective)
"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy."

Personally, I think mantis shrimp are beautiful, but try telling that to their prey that they can hit with the force of a .22 bullet - evil little killers that they are!

977. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46115 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 9:15 am

Guy's talking of music, you cant touch this http://youtube.com/watch?v=3XV6hNCgLAU
:-)

978. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46081 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 6:42 am

Still waiting David

979. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #46077 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 6:38 am

Glad this went down well, I'm puting it up on my office.
Flagellant One thing I suggested at the Glasgow brights was that we attend alpha courses and help people who attend them realise how stupid religion is. I used to teach these things, but the arguements are so easily dismantled

980. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46076 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 6:29 am

Sorry for the bold guys :-(

Epeeist, I think CDs are the only thing being converted here. Hands up who thinks devolved makes any sense - I've just thrust mine under the table.
BTW we were punished for eating the apple, even though we only knew it was wrong to disobey god after we ate it. Oh, and god did say we could eat anything that bore seeds

981. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46038 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 4:04 am

Billy Sands is not remotely interested in the genealogy of Christ but he chooses to lob it in as red herring to divert the argument away from the fact that he asked me about sickle cell anaemia and I pointed out that it is not a proof of evolution. To support my claim I referred him to the work of Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu a world expert on sickle cell anaemia. The doctor is a former evolutionist who when confronted with the scientific evidence became a creationist. Billy is silent on that. I suggested to Billy that if he disagrees with the doctor that he posts a comment into the doctor's website so we can all benefit from the exchange.
And what makes you say that I am not interested in the genealogy? Perhaps you are deflecting from the point that the bible is a load of rubbish. I couldn't care less what Ahulu believes. My arguement is with you! Incidentally, I was a creationist of sorts, but science - not fairy tales convinced me there is no room for god in evolution, and I give valid reasons why.

Haemoglobin (a molecule found in blood) has over 300 known mutants, yet not one has turned out to be helpful for human survival. This includes the haemoglobin mutation associated with sickle cell anaemia. Despite the fact that sickle cell anaemia sufferers are more resistant to malaria, they are also subject to 'growth impairment, susceptibility to infection, and chronic organ damage due to repeated vaso-occlusive episodes.

What pish! what you fail to mention is that despite the problems, they are still better off against malaria sufferers without the gene - and produce more offspring - a beautiful example of natural selection at work. Actually, hemoglobin families are good evidence of evolution. this is an old reference, I'll try and dig out a better one later http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.001213
We can trace gene dupilcations quite nicely

Sickle cell anaemia is one example of a loss of genetic information conferring an advantage (resistance to malaria) at a cost. It is an example of devolution (losing information) not evolution (gaining information).

Perhaps you would like to explain why it is a loss of information? It has the same number letters after all. More importantly, the statement lies. loss of information is still evolution!

Your mutation article has been dealt with by nails. Care to share your calculations with us anyway, we need a laugh

0.04 percent, or 4 in 10,000 articles on mutations, were located that discussed beneficial or favorable mutations.

And why is this a problem for evolution? Mutation is random, and more likely to have dammaging effects anyway? Thought you said you believed in evolution once - clearly you knew nothing about it.

You seem to have a hardon for information gain, but you haven't read that article on colour vision. All this rubbish you paste here just sets up straw man arguements about evolution . What about the fossil record?

What about noah's pathogens?
What about dinosaurs?
What about biblical contradictions?

982. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45787 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 9:22 am

Benjamin,
Is there a concept of Hell in judaism? I always thought that Sheol (a bit like Hades) was where every one went, and that Hell as a place of suffering was a christian thing

983. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #45785 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 9:05 am

Philip
We are a nation of contrasts. We gave the world penicillin, steam power, the TV and telephone. However, we also gave the world David Robertson and David Livingston who paved the way for HIV spread in Africa.
By the way, we invented everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlSqCpHJObs
:-)

984. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #45765 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 6:46 am

Cheers Philip
Maybe he has been embarrased enough here and wants to avoid debate and go straight to his pavlovian response of calling folk fundies

985. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45761 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 6:29 am

pewkatchoo,
I don't know, but he/she/it pure acts like a fud!

986. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45758 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 6:19 am

Devolved, Answer the challenges if you want to play with the grown ups. I am not going to read your limestone drivel, so why do you just explain it to us and we can exchange thoughts on it. you seem pretty reluctant to do that dont you? Could you just be spouting propaganda for the sake of it?

And my interpretation of Isaiah 40:21-26 is supported by many Bible scholars including, for example

So what???? Justify your position - that's what intelligent people do. You are faced with an embarrasing problem and you have to make the bible fit reality. A circle is not a sphere and there is a hebrew word for sphere, but the verse says circle - justify.

I see you cant face the challenge of the genealogies - here's another: jesus is decended from a moabite (read Nehemiah on moabites).
However, lets take my favorite, the virgin birth prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) The verse is a bout a sign to be given to ahaz around 730 BCE, yet Matthew claims it predicted jesus would be born of a virgin - Come on, give me a break!
Why are you spouting rubbish links on carbon dating again? Do you read anything? Does it sink in, do you think about it? Remember you got you fanny kicked (and I mean that in the British sense) on this thread?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones

987. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45754 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 6:02 am

Hey David,
Some of us are still waiting to hear your response to homosexuality and the pope being the antichrist etc. In case you forgot, here's the page
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1137,Would-the-World-Be-Safer-Without-Religion,Gregg-Easterbrook-Beliefnetcom,page3#comments

You did after all say you would be happy to answer

988. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45736 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 5:19 am

devolved

I don't claim to be a world class expert on this but I can refer you to someone who is:

I see you are avoiding the issue again. I have also seen that review already (its rubbish), and as I keep telling you, I challenged CMI and they wimped out. Incidentally, my life does not revolve around reading your propaganda, and we are talking evolurtion here, not the god delusion
Now answer the questions

989. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #45708 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 3:32 am

wot? still no david?

990. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45701 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 2:44 am

Hi Epeeist. He is a very silly boy. Sometimes I think he might be David Robertson.

You'll notice the challenge to atheists in v21 Billy.

What challenge is that then? All I see are some words that pre-suppose the existence of yahweh. And we all know how reliable the bible is - Matthew and Luke cant even agree on Joseph's ancestry for a start.

Billy has his source, I choose another so for balance follow this link

Really, mines comes from real biblical scholars and christians with a PhD in that suff - by your adherence to authority, they must right. The flat earth is an embarrasment to the bible. You should at least be honest about it. I also asked you to critisice the article, not exchange links. That's how people exchange idea - but that wouldn't interest you. You already think you are right.

I also asked you about Noah and disease - as well as the formation of limestone!

I can still only find just so stories. Of course it's impossible to do science in the past so none of our claims about what happened can be tested scientifically.

Really? Care to back up that statement? Here's a little prediction we can test. If evolution happened, the fossil record will record gradual changes. If creationism is true, there will be no change, and men and dinosaurs will be found together. Well, number 1 is true, no 2 certainly isn't

Billy falsely claims, "…you did lie about once believing in evolution."
No I was once just as convinced as you Billy. Now I'm willing to see convincing evidence but can't find much on this website (even when I'm not asking questions).

I find that hard to believe since you dont know how it works. I was once as convinced as you are about god, but I was deluded too. I find it absurd that you find no evidence. You have constantly been challenged on the fossil record. You are just in denial. As for just so stories, they have been succesfully tested. Compare that to the just so story of god did it

Billy recommends, "I recommend everyone reads this link"

There's that selective quoting again. Here's the full quote: "I recommend everyone reads this link to see how stupid creatioists are to swallow this. Shame they couldn't print their picture of the dinosaur for copyright reasons - eh? "(see Figures 1 and 31 [due to copyright restrictions, Figure 3 is only available in Creation magazine])."
Do you really think poor quality drawings are evidence of dinosaurs? How bizzare!

And as for me 'mining' the internet I resolutely refuse to re-invent the bicycle.

Presumably you mean you cant argue your own case and just spout dogma.

by which he must mean people who don't agree with him (as he hasn't given any examples to date to substantiate his claim).

No, I mean Liars! If you can provide a decent challenge - like those dinosaur fossils, then fair enough. All you present are lies - remember scickle cell haemoglobin for example.

'Misprpresentation' = more letters = more information??? Remind me, how does evolution work Billy?

Remember ALX-4? less letters - more claws - you misrepresent evolution yet again.
Did you actually read that article on colour vision?
- No? didnt think so.

991. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45561 by BillySands on May 28, 2007 at 7:27 am

Welcome back Billy with your usual salvo of nonsense over logic. You're nothing if not predictable.

That's nice little boy, and what is santa getting you?

You haven't answered my questions, and you make unsubstantiated claims about my logic - remind me, why should I take you seriously again?

I found one near your home Billy. You can read more about it here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/133/

Oh dear, I pissed myself with laughter there. I recommend everyone reads this link to see how stupid creatioists are to swallow this. Shame they couldn't print their picture of the dinosaur for copyright reasons - eh? "(see Figures 1 and 31 [due to copyright restrictions, Figure 3 is only available in Creation magazine])."

I love the eryops and the sauropods - do you write fantasy novels?

They didn't.

How do you know? Disease has always been in the fossil record

Billy "Why does the bible say the earth is flat?"
Your bible might. My Bible doesn't.

Really, and where does it say it os a sphere? critisice this http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm

Have you evolved a new organ through which you think and speak Billy? More evidence of mutations providing more information I'd guess.

No, I lost that vestigial organ that makes me deluded and talk shite when I lost my faith. That reminds me, read those articles yet? Realised how evolution works yet?

Tell you what, I might start playing nice if you start thinking and not mine quotes and take out of context in a cynical attempt to decieve (actually, I think it is those you got the quotes from who are intent on misprpresentation - you are merely swallowing their lies). Then again, you did lie about once believing in evolution, so which is it?

992. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45556 by BillySands on May 28, 2007 at 7:00 am

I have yet to find anyone on the website who has written a critique of David's book.

Well, it has been seriously shredded. Ifact may folk went on his site and dismantled it - including a former minister of his church. From what I can tell, all that stuff has been removed from the site - strange that - eh?

Research over the past five years in the Kelly Caves of Kangaroo Island has shown that stalactites can grow at rates of up to 1/2 inch (7mm) in four years.

Oh dear, it seems the area the caves are found in exports Gypsum http://australian.lifetips.com/cat/12352/south-australia/index.html See Don,s post. By the way, how does limestone form in a global flood? Actually, evaporate sea water by 30% and you form gypsum!

Devolved, have you read those papers yet?

993. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #45555 by BillySands on May 28, 2007 at 6:39 am

HERE'S ONE FOR DEVOLVED
PROVERBS 14:15 15 Only simpletons believe everything they're told!

994. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45554 by BillySands on May 28, 2007 at 6:30 am

And as a matter of fact which of the scientists I mentioned wasn't a creationist? I repeat, whoever throws mud ends up losing ground.

My arse! WHAT KIND OF STUPID ARGUEMENT IS THAT?

995. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45553 by BillySands on May 28, 2007 at 6:26 am

Ah, this is where devolved has run to. How's the dinosaur hunting mate?
Tell me, why do you you believe these creationist "scientists". We have so often shown they lie and attempt to decieve and promote their own agenda. You clearly aren't capable of independent thought and refuse to give your qualifications. I presume our rebuttals go over your head. So, here's the question. Since you clearly don't understand what you are talking about, why are you here? Please tell me where the dinosaurs are? And how did noah's family harbour all known human pathogens and live? Why does the bible say the earth is flat?

OH, and we dont uses stalacitites to age the earth, and bats trapped in them are not true fossils - meerly encrustations - abit like the stuff found in the mouths of people with poor dental hygiene.

996. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #44297 by BillySands on May 24, 2007 at 6:30 am

BillySands - yes I am honestly telling you that wee frees don't lock up swing parks in the Outer Hebrides! And surely what they all community determines to do with its own transport is up to them. Why do you wish to impose your standards on everybody else?

Come come David tell the truth now. I even know people who have been kicked out of B&Bs for watching the TV on a sunday when the family were at church.
Is Luthien making it up too?
I dont see how you think I wish to impose my ways on others. It is that point I am protesting againt. There are some who want the ferry service, but the Sabbatatians want their way. They can after all choose not to use them and let everyone who wants to use them.

"ost appear to be angry at him. Not at jews or gays etc."

Sorry, Billy that just does not work. It strikes me that you seem especially angry at Christians.

Evidence? I may get angry at disrespectuful christians. Would it suprise you to know that this week alone I have been out for coffee on three different occasions with three good christian friends? In fact, on one occasion (the day after a brights meeting) there was a friend from the brights in the same coffee shop and I was worried that he may inadvertantly say something that my christian friend could have found offensive - being a moral atheist of course, he didn't. If you read some of my posts on your site, you would have seen there were some folk there that I liked. Of course, some were complete twats too

Would it suprise you to know that I have travelled all the way to Harrisbugh to be best man at a missionary's wedding? So, where is your evidence for that statement?

I am more than happy to answer your question on homosexuality but in order to do so I need to know where you are coming from and what you mean. Could you tell me why you think polygamy is wrong and why paedophilia is wrong?

Just to put your mind at ease, I am straight - not that that should matter. I mean what is so wicked about it? It is a clear enough question.
I dont neccessarily think polygamy is wrong if all involved are aware of it and happy with it, and there is love. Personally, it's not my bag. Paedophilia is quite obvious really. It is usually non consenting and breaks the trust of the victim, leading to hurt and problems in forming other functional relationships - particularly with members of the opposite sex. It often leads to feelings of worthlessness and takes away the ability to enjoy relational pleasure. Victims often resort to drugs, alcohol, promiscuity (leading to further feelings of worthlessness and self loathing) and self harm. About a third of victims develop eating disorders too. Victims are scarred and their right to a fulfilled life is violated. I could rattle on - my former church had loads of such victims, and I got myself involved with one, so I know what I'm talking about.
How does that compare to a loving homosexual situation?

Actually, there is no real historical evidence for Jesus. The "best" is actually the josephus passage, and at best that has been tampered with - unless devout jews are in the habbit of calling folk the christ. At worst, it is a total fabrication. All other sources merely mention the presence of christian, or like josephus, were not contempories. Hard facts evaporate all your claims. May I suggest you read these?
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php
http://www.exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/04/is-christianity-based-on-pagan-roots.php http://www.exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/05/historical-evidence-for-jesus.php
You are quick to dismiss people who give reasons to reject the bible, but you never provide any evidence. You ducked out of a quirinius debate, and one of the first things I ever challenged you on was the existence of Abraham - you provided no case - could it be you have no case?

Off to Skye for a few days, I'll take my bolt cutters just incase I want to play on the swings on sunday (admittedly, Portee is more enlightened than Stornaway - not sure about Uig though - they hold sevices in gaelic there! Actually some wee granny would olny speak to me in gaelic once in portree)

997. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #44285 by BillySands on May 24, 2007 at 5:07 am

Lee, you're a man of the world - nudge nugde....

There was a Guy called the Brahan seer who predicted this amongst other things:

He predicted that when there were five bridges over the River Ness in Inverness that there would be worldwide chaos. In August 1939 there were five bridges over the Ness and on September 1st the same year Hitler invaded Poland.

He said that when there were nine bridges that there would be fire, flood and calamity. The ninth bridge was built in 1987 and in 1988 the Piper Alpha disaster happened.

According to this prophecy, "The day will come when the MacKenzies of Fairburn shall lose their entire possessions; their castle will become uninhabited and a cow shall give birth to a calf in the uppermost chamber of the tower." This apparently heralded the demise of the MacKenzies of Kintail and Seaforth.

In 1851, the now-ruined tower was being used by a farmer to store hay, and a cow gave birth in the garret. It is believed that the animal, following a trail of hay, entered the tower, climbed to the top, and got stuck. Both the cow and the calf were taken down five days later, allowing enough time for people to come and see the prophecy fulfilled. This was one of four prophecies by the Seer regarding Fairburn, at least three of which are reputed to have been fulfilled.



Does Mark accept these prophecies, and if not, why not?

998. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #44205 by BillySands on May 23, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Enlightenme
It is a possiblity. Although some people think that changes favoured more males http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&list_uids=15066448&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google

999. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #44019 by BillySands on May 23, 2007 at 7:31 am

Peacebeuponme

I'm a bit slow today - doh!

1000. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43993 by BillySands on May 23, 2007 at 6:30 am

but what Dawkins failed to acknowledge in his encounter with Haggard is that the Nazi program of eugenics and extermination was not dictated by an unseen god.

Doesn't she know the old testamment is a jewish ethnic cleansing manifesto