1201. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22816 by BillySands on February 23, 2007 at 7:12 am

Nice one padster,
But you only really wrote that because deep down inside you know that despite all its contadiction, immorality, madness and inaccuracies, the bible is true and that Darth Vader is your father :-)

It will be interesting to read their reply. They never got back after I trashed their flood myth and pointed out that I an quite comfortable with myself :-(

Funny thing is, old gimpy thinks that article gave Dawkins a pasteing.

1202. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22788 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 9:10 am

Where oh where do theists get the notion that god sets moral standards? Oh yeah, the bible. Funny that people who have never heard of god make the same moral judgements as the less insane theists -I do of course discount the ones who believe that homosexuals/moabites/cananites etc are evil because the bible says so. There are no moral absolutes. A moral sence is something that natural selection has provided us with. The two main mechanisms are kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Our societal context dictates our moral values, and a selective pressure to conform to our society gives us our "morality" We don't commit murder willy nilly, because natural selection tends not to favour murderers - they usually get imprisoned or executed if they are casught. Contrary to what may appear obvious, not murdering is a selfish genetic strategy. We do not get cut off from society and our offspring do not have to be raised by just one parent. Their chance of survival is then increased (remember, we did not evolve in a welfare state). All moral acts can be similarly explained. We also seem to have an ability to be brainwashed too though, but thats ok when the rest of society is brainwashed also. Moral origins can be tested, and tests show it is an inherent human property (barring brain lesions - further underlying the physical nature of the mind, conscience and conciousness)

read this for an intro to moral origins http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/evolpsych.html
as well as the relevant chapter in TGD

Confusious came up with the golden rule 500 years before jesus "force not on others that which you do not choose for yourself", and the Sumerians preempted the turn the other cheek verse "Do not return evil to your adversary;

Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you,

Maintain justice for your enemy,

Be friendly to your enemy."

So says a 3rd millennium BCE text, "Counsels of Wisdom,"
Christianity offern nothing new, and the bible preaches intolerance of other faiths and groups - sounds more like the work of men rather than a morally pure god. Then again, maybe I am so removed from god that I cant see that xenophobia and killing children in the good old joshuah and egyptian plague ways are actually good acts

1203. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22768 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 2:51 am

bizzaro
"Being a full-time college student (biology major no less),"


YAAAAWWWWNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!


"I don't have the time to explain this, but all of the verses used to support these arguments are either taken out of their literal or historical context, or misinterpreted"

What, you mean like Matthew took Isaiah 7:14 out of context and mistranslated it, or that he also took Micah 5:2 out of context?
Slavery and murdering of your family for worshiping others gods is ALLWAYS wrong, no ifs buts or other pleas. As is making a rapist marry his victim, and stoning homosexuals. All this is the law of your god and the moral standards are his. Jesus often contradicts this insanity. However, he is not perfect either. He would not sell a jar of expensive perfume to help the poor Matt 26 " 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste? 9 "For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor." 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. 11 "For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."
Nasty Jesus, it is allways about him, and we will allways have the poor, so stuff them. Yet, he knows this action is wrong: Matt 25:" 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Richard said that Liberty students like you sould attend a proper university. However, I dont think you would get in.

Dr Billy (a "normal" Scotsman with a PhD from a proper university (Biochemistry no less))

PS I will ignore you from now on. It is the best thing for you, I dont think I should feed your delusion or your obvious insecurity and need at having to convince yourself of what you believe.

1204. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22766 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 2:32 am

"Crazy as it may sound, it's no joke."

Bloody hell! may the spaghetti monster have mercy on us all.

On gimplethingys recomendation I checked out this site
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900

I sent them this letter
What a thouroughly pathetic and biased site that is steeped in prejudice, ignorance and mythology. Your commentator on the doG delusion says that Dawkins is strongly anti religious, so he has a closed mind. Get real. Perhaps he is anti religious because he can see what rubbish it is. Not as funny as your claim that you stick to the infallible word of Dog. Now that is narrow, closed minded insanity!

Despite the fact that the greek translations had methusela surviving the flood and ezras sums in the LXX dont add up. What makes you think your version is ant less inerrant? What about versions where Micah 5:2 is translated "clans" not village, or Isaiah 7:14 where many translations reffer to a yound woman and not a virgin. Neither are about jesus antway (read in context) By the way, how come god punnished Adam an eve for sinning before they knew what was right and wrong? Nasty evil - god!

I could go on for ever, but I only have one brief shot at existence. I pity your lot - you probably think the flintstones are a documentary!

I got some bizzare reply about sin convicting me about gods existance and a pdf on how fossil ammonites prove the flood story.

"You expressed a lot of anger your email. If what we say were incorrect, there would be no cause for you to get so upset. Anger like yours is evidence of a conscience convicting you of sin. Deep down, you recognise that what we say makes sense and so you react angrily. If you find our material so upsetting, you have only to click your mouse to leave our website. Alternatively, you can face up to your fear and anger and admit that you are sinner and do something about it"

I put him right on all points.

Creationists are window licking loonies

1205. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22727 by BillySands on February 21, 2007 at 9:41 am

None other than John Wesley said of the bible (something approximating) "that if there be one error in that book there may as well be a thousand".
I think the fear of literalists is that you show one bit to be false then everything is discredited - shame that thousands of thing in the bible are false. Actually, did the septuagint translations not have Methusela survive the flood? What makes them think their current version is any more error free? I know, because they prayed harder than the professional translators of the bible and god specifically revealed the truth to them alone, so when the bible means something other than what it clearly says, god tells these guys alone what he actually meant. Make sense to anyone? Naa, didn't think so!

1206. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22655 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 8:32 am

PS, Why did my post that I wrote after Martin's appear before it in this thread?

1207. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22654 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 8:30 am

"THE governor's action seems to signify that God's moral law regarding sex outside of marriage can be transgressed without consequence"

Am I to assume this douche bag thinks that STIs are gods punishment for promiscuity. Gee, I guess all those children born HIV positive must have been having incestuous orgies in utero.
It does disgust me that this guy thinks that peoples lives should be put at risk if they have pre marital sex - BTW I didn't realise marriage was an effective vaccine against HPV. So if you kept gods law (actually the bible does not say no inny outy rumpy pumpy before marriage - anywhere) and your wife didn't, you should be safe. Can we have compulsory post natal abortion up to the age of 70 for retards like this!
PS "nice" picture of HPV infection here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/SOA-Condylomata-acuminata-man.jpg/180px-SOA-Condylomata-acuminata-man.jpg Dont open if you are squeamish
So I think vaccination is a good idea

1208. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #22648 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

gimlibengloin
It's rather sweet that you seem concerned that you think I'm ignoreing you. I have however been busy - but I am touched. I will repay your cut and paste with one of my own. However, you show nothing in your response that there was a single author and ignore some of the details thart are crucial. a few are pasted below. Note also concerning the trip to gerar, there was no city there in the supposed time of abraham

"Other evidence also suggests that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that many different writers made contributions to it. There are contradictory statements, one of the most obvious of which concerns the number of animals Noah took into the ark. In Gen. 6:19 Noah is told to take two of every kind of living creature — one male and one female — but in Gen. 7:2 seven pair of clean animals and birds are required. Would a single writer be so inconsistent?

Num. 35:6-7 specifies that Levites were to receive certain territorial inheritances, but Deut. 18:1 makes it quite clear that they are to have no inheritance. According to Exod. 3:13-15 and Exod. 6:2-3, the personal name of God, "Yahweh,"5 was revealed for the first time to Moses on the holy mountain. Prior to this revelation, Yahweh was known only as "Elohim,"6 or as "El Shaddai."7 On the other hand, however, Gen. 4:26 indicates that from very early times men called upon God by his personal name of Yahweh, and in numerous places the patriarchs use the name Yahweh (see Gen. 22:14, 26:25, 27:20, 28:13). Would a single author make statements so contradictory? In fact, the very manner in which divine names are used prior to the revelation of Yahweh's name in Exodus raises problems. In certain sections of Genesis "Elohim" appears exclusively (Gen. 1:1-31, 9:1-11) ; in other places "Yahweh" appears alone (Gen. 4:1-16, 11:1-9). It would appear that different traditions have been brought together.

Some stories appear more than once, in what scholars have called "doublets." For example, in Gen. 15:5 Abraham is promised many descendants, and in Gen. 17:2 the promise is needlessly repeated. In Gen. 12:11-20 Sarah pretends to be the sister of Abraham. This same story appears in a slightly different setting in Gen. 20:1-18, and is told again with Isaac and Rebekah as central actors in Gen. 26:6-11. In the last two examples, Philistine kings are mentioned and the Philistines did not settle in Palestine until the twelfth century. How are such repetitions, contradictions and anachronisms best explained?"

Concerning incest, are you saying that the god who I believe you have said elsewhere is a source of moral absolutes changes his mind and outlaw something that he was previously ok with. I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that cain built a city - where did the people come from? Leviticus 20:12 calls for the death penalty for incest, as it is a disgusting act - not a bad genetic act. 1 Cor 5:1 also calls it an immoral actnd not one that is sensible to avoid on genetic grounds. Your arguement of variation breaks down when scrutinised. For example hieght of pea plants is controlled by one gene. Each plant has 2 copies of it. Mutations generally disrupt function. Mutate both copies, and you have no tall plants. A more serious flaw in your statement however is the existance of fossil mutants hundreds of millions of years older than the first humans fossils. It's amazing how a little reality can destroy a nice theory.

Concerning fossils, what are you referring to? And where are these fossil humans that supposedly lived with T.rex? THE FLINTSTONES IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY BY THE WAY!

I am still busy, so dont cry if I dont get back - stiff upper - remember how we gave gerry a taste of good old british spunk and all that!


PS is your real name Douglas?

Theo Hi back

1209. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22635 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 4:17 am

Davorg, cannibalism is only to be expected, after all, god likes to make people eat each other (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9), although the communiion seems to be an idea stolen from the worshipers of Mithras.

PS god tastes bitter with a dash of xenophobia thrown in, there is also a strong metallic taste of blood. He is most disagreeable to my sense of moral taste

1210. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22631 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 3:50 am

gimlibengloin

From previous discussions with you, I get the impression that you are a 6 day creationist. So, how do you account for the fact that the fossil record clearly shows life did not suddenly appear in its current form?
I find it strange that you are so hell bent on denying evolution but you like to quote theists that are comforable with it. However, I am with you on the bible vs evolution. They are incompatable. Reason forces me to accept evolution and reject your god.

1211. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22628 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 3:39 am

I'm glad I visited the fixed earth link or I would have thought this was serious. The fact that some people are not sure says a lot about how insane real creationists are - although, they are so mad, it could be real - oh no!

1212. Researchers find 6,000-year-old fossil evidence

Comment #22466 by BillySands on February 19, 2007 at 7:17 am

Padster, that would explain why the bible has no instructions on cooking dog chilli.

1213. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #22167 by BillySands on February 13, 2007 at 5:52 am

John,
Amongst many other things, the bible cant even agree with itself on the family tree of jesus (luke 3 vs Matt 1)

1214. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #22164 by BillySands on February 13, 2007 at 5:40 am

Same old theistic appealing to authority nonsence. Is he aware that Collins converted on the basis that he saw a frozen waterfall that reminded him of the trinity? Very rational - not! It really is quite pathetic that someone should believes in the supernatural because some fairy tale book says so. It is as stupid as going - "wow, I cant explain the universe, the god of my particular delusion must have done it". Not oly is he trying to create a reason to believe in a god, but he has already dcided the qualities of that god - yeah, that's a good way to go about it! It is the same for the arguement from design.
It's a shame I missed his talk in Glasgow, I would probably have laughed more in one night than I have done in the last 5 years.
By the light of Darwin I see everything else

1215. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21201 by BillySands on February 8, 2007 at 2:47 am

"I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist."

Hey, when you are right, you are right, and no ammount of ignorant pleading will change that. Perhaps McGrath is frustrated that his own piss poor arguements can not change the mind of a reasonable man, so he resorts to questioning his rationality. Surely then the only option in his own mind is that he must be right, and that he is the one that is immune to facts. Religion is one of those things that comes as a package. You have to decide that all that you belive is the only way, and anyone who disagrees on even the tiniest matter must be wrong, and if they fail to accept your religious point of view, then you label them closed minded.
If god appeared we would believe, simple as that mr McGrath (I cant call you professor, because to do so would devalue my own title)

1216. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #21018 by BillySands on February 7, 2007 at 9:55 am

Yes fonex, it makes me laugh. They set up their own rules so that their god can not be challenged - god is beyond our understanding, he always existed, he can not be scrutinised etc. Exactly the same qualities I would bestow on an immaginary god that I had made up. Dealing rationally then, there is no evidence of god, and these qualities deny you rationally exploring him. Therefore, their faith has no rational basis whatsoever.

1217. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #20977 by BillySands on February 7, 2007 at 7:22 am

Too true Scottish Geologist.

Srange they never mentioned god accepting the sacrifice of Jepthath's daughter either (Jud. 11:29-40)

I never even got taught about the hilarious bear mauling of children in 2kings : 23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

All for callind Elisha a slap head. Good job the childern were not lesbeans, they would really have been in for it.

Hey David, did you like my little piece in the scottish metro on monday, demostrating that the bible is a book of disgusting moral values?

1218. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #20961 by BillySands on February 7, 2007 at 6:01 am

Dave,
God and women
He does not 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. Even some Christians realize and disagree with their god on this! 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!
GET REAL DUDE

1219. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20958 by BillySands on February 7, 2007 at 5:55 am

Of course St Richard is not acting like god. He has not killed anyone for being firstborn in egypt or gay or whistling on the sabbath. He is also real, I have seen him.
gimlibengloin
I dont know why, but I kind of like you, so I am going to be nice. That article was a complete bag of toss (nicer than saying shite don't you think :-) ). I despair. Nothing works at 100% efficiency. It is a lie, as well as vague. This "scientific fact" is published in some creation journal and not something reputable like the peer reviewed "journal of biological chemistry" which publishes loads on enzymology.
Irreducible complex flagella - dont think so, read about the bacterial syringe.
The arguement from design only appeals to gaps in understanding. It is not a valid reason to claim design. It is basically the arguement from incredulity given a pseudointellectual spin in a vain attempt to gain some credibility. How would YOU demonstrate something is designed and test this? I'm affraid that gene families and the fossil record argue againt design. Devise an experiment for your hypothesis and tell us about it

prob wont be back on for a bit, so take care.

1220. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #20620 by BillySands on February 5, 2007 at 6:01 am

Wot, no troll?
He must have got his fingers rapped by his own church for being abusive and offensive.
PS don't reply if you are the antichrist and head over heels in love with Satan and his little demons

1221. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #20617 by BillySands on February 5, 2007 at 5:51 am

Mark and shaun,
The trick is to read it then judge for yourself. There are many things on that site that I do not believe to be true contradictions etc, but there are plenty of real ones too. You seem to be employing a tactic of rubbishing claims for lack of objectivity, but that is hardly an arguement. If you want something more balanced, try http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Incidentally, do you suggest that your congregations read sceptical reviews too or do you only cry foul when the bible is being knocked? There is nothing less objective than a preacher in full flow.

Take care guys

1222. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #20245 by BillySands on February 1, 2007 at 8:53 am

Big Yaaawwnn!
If IDiots can come up with something testable, then we can call it science. So far they have not. It still boils down to "fuck me, I can't explain it, god must have done it". We have good explanations for many biochemical systems arising from simpler ones. Once one is explained, the IDiots jump on another pathway. It is good, because it has seriously improved my understanding of biochemical evolution, so I guess they shoot themselves in the foot there.
All this anthropic principle stuff relies on a very big assumption: that these are the only possible conditions for life to exist. DO WE REALLY KNOW SO MUCH THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION? It is therefore not valid to cite it as evidence of a designer. What then would be evidence? To convince me, life would need to remain unchanged throughout the fossil record and appear suddenly (with no simpler forebearers to pre-empt depressingly predictable precambrian explosion nonsense). There would be no homologous structures. There would be no relationship between living organisms. Respiration would have to be much more efficient than it is. There would be no bad designs and we would be very hard pressed to improve upon designs. There would be no vestigial organs, our immune systems would not be a danger to us. Infact, there would be no viruses or parasites. I'm bored now and hope others add to the list

1223. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #20209 by BillySands on February 1, 2007 at 4:17 am

Quetzelcoatl
there is a good selection of contradictions etc at this site http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/
rsquared
There is no passage to explain this, and the literalist is left with the forbidden practice of incest.

1224. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #20201 by BillySands on February 1, 2007 at 2:37 am

Well said Shuggy, that is the entire basis of christian counselling. If things dont happen or prayers are not answered, then it is the believers fault. A perfect tool to perpetuate the christian meme!
I hope benny has a prolapse

1225. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #20091 by BillySands on January 31, 2007 at 10:15 am

arrrggh, I hate this guy. If stuck in a lift with him I would happily get all Ezekiel 5:17 on his ass.
To my embarrasment, I once went to see this guy. It was sick to see people hooked up to oxygen there who had no chance of recovery being exploited. I remember seenig a guy get on stage saying that god had just cured him of sickle cell anemia. My thoughts were initially "aye right, you're fu**ing WHITE!" (It is almost exclusively a disease of blacks).
stpetes aka sideshow Dave "the troll" Robertson
Benny Hinn is a charlatan and the best apologist for atheism there is. He should not receive a penny of tax rebate because his claims are fraudulent and demonstrably so. I write this as an Evangelical Christian who is appalled at how gullible people often are.

Really, I thought it was lack of any evidence, biblical inaccuracies, contradictions, absurdities and contrived messianic prpophecies myself. Surely if your non existant control freak god was real, he would send a plague on him. He did after all kill Onan for not impregnating someone (gen 38:6-10). Surely this is much worse!

1226. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #20020 by BillySands on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 am

"Oh, lord, thou are huge..." :o)

Jesus comes home from School and says "mum, I just discovered I have the biggest penis in the school. Is it because I am the son of God?" "No" she replies, "it is because you are 25 and a f***ing delusional retard!"
:-)

1227. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #20015 by BillySands on January 31, 2007 at 4:43 am

Dont these muppets even realise the prayer doesnt even work??????
Our Father???
We evolved!
Hallowed be thy name???
Yeah, if you thing a mysogenistic, racist, baby killing bigot is cool
Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven???
Surely this ficticional character can do what he wants and didn't Satan rebel anyway? And what about our free will - you know, the stuff sin is blamed on?
Give us our daily bread????
How may christians starve to death?
Deliver us from evil?
What, like he did for job? How many have been killed in the name of religion?
Bunch of retards!

1228. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #19999 by BillySands on January 31, 2007 at 3:28 am

This phenomenon has been known for some time, but is ignored by the IDiots. Their need to literally see an "increase of information" and the evolution of new taxa is tied to their fundamental lack of understanding as to how evolution works. Shame they are not so critical of biblical myths


Padster
It's possible. I think Sex dramatically facilitated the speed of evolution too. It causes more variations that can be selected simultaneously

1229. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #18250 by BillySands on January 19, 2007 at 5:59 am

DAVID, IS YOUR HEAD REALLY THAT FAR UP YOUR ARSE? You avoid challenging discussion like the plague -messianic prophecies, quirinius, paleopathology ring any bells?
Now who was it that removed some of my mild mannered posts from his own site and threatened to ban me for making too many posts on different threads?

You are a child, and show a distinct lack of respect for people here. You behaviour is so unbiblical, there can be no truth to scripture.
Have a nice life waco. Just a shame that after it, none of us will be around for me to say "I told you so". Go practice the commands of your dead leader and love oyhers like yourself, respect the ways of others and be tolerant of those who differ (naturally, you should ignore the OT passages that contradict this)

Hope you evolve soon

1230. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18247 by BillySands on January 19, 2007 at 5:49 am

Hi Shaun,
"I don't know of any scientist's that believe in Genesis creation who say this? Behe, Kenyon, Dembski and Co., look at the same evidence Dawkins, Futyama and Co. do - the difference is that they aren't looking for a reason to exclude God, and in fact, find plenty of rational reasons (aka empirical scientific evidence) to believe in Him."

There is no rational reason to include god, and that is what the above mentioned try (in particyular their own god)

"Clearly what I am not saying is that the empirical data "proves" God's existence (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), merely that arguably the evidence supports intelligent, purposeful design more readily than it supports a blind, unintelligent, purposeless, naturalistic process. The philosophical naturalists have to make up stories to overcome the problem (as they see it) of "apparent" design."

Why? And why cant to see the obvious flaw in this arguement? That god must need a creator then. To argue otherwise is to add a non evidence based assumption to another equally unsuppotred assumption. There is plenty of evidence of complex things evolving from less complex things. Behe has been refuted on every point. Take these articles on the immune system for example. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html This evolution, not design

"The case of Dean Kenyon makes interesting reading, look him up on Wikipedia and TalkOrigins."

I'll look into this when time permits

"When you use the Dawkins argument against belief in the Creator by invoking the "fairy" analogy, you imply that my belief in the God of the Bible is more akin to "blind trust" – granted, trust is there, but blind it most certainly is not!

This line of argument defines faith as a blind trust in the absence of, or even despite, the evidence. This is quite simply misleading, and wishful thinking on the part of you atheists!"

Peter pan is evidence for fairies. There are even pictures of some (that some non believers call fakes). The fairy analogy stands, you have seen neither god nor fairies. You can neither prove of disprove the existance of either.
I have usually found that believers are often told to put blind trust in their god at difficult times. It seems there is no christian consensus on this then.

"This type of analogy reveals a seriously skewed understanding of what faith is. It presumes that all the empirical data can only point to one conclusion, despite the fact that many rational, intellectual and successful scientists see the same data as providing evidence of purposeful design. This is clearly a "straw man" being erected to be duly knocked down – and rightly so if this is all that belief in the Creator was based upon.. Anyone willing to objectively and honestly consider the ongoing debate in the scientific community will see that this is quite obviously not the case.

Do you deny that for many, that is the basis of faith. What we are argueing about here though is interpretation of data. Behe and co do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. As far as I am aware, there is no data for ID publidhed in any peer revieved scientific journal.ID is not science! (see the nature immunology link above).
I cant remember the passage, but it says in the bible that faith should be based on the certain knowledge of the ressurection of jesus. Where is this conclusive evidence then?


"Generally speaking the evidence is as referred to above. To be more specific, when a biologist considers phenomena from the natural world, he has to constantly remind himself that he is not observing things which have been purposefully designed, but are the product of "Evolution" (That's a rough quote from memory, of the late Francis Crick). Also RD confirms this unavoidable truth in Blind Watchmaker, he says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (my emphasis). He then goes on to write an entire book in an attempt to explain why we should avoid this obvious conclusion."

Now you are setting up a straw man. Also when someone like Dawkins says it may be reasonable to assume design, he is most certainly not saying that design is likely (despite the best efforts of some fundie sites to claim otherwise). It is reasonable to assume that the sun travels across the sky, but it does not. It is this simplistic way of looking at things that Dawkins etc challenge, and if you look at organisms closely they are incredibly poorly constucted and "designed". We have the question too of junk DNA that points to an evolutionary history, not creation. Bats and birds have different wing structures because of their differing ancestry. If I was a designer, they would both be more like insects. We can even see the evolution of complex biochemical pathways (and I believe I have posted evidence for this before). The more we look, the less design we see and the more apparent progressive accumulation becomes. We dont need to complicate this relatively simple process by making a special appeal to a desiger. Lets face it, he also have designed nasty diseases too that are very good at disabling our immune systems.

"The burden of proof, Billy, is on those who say there is no design and purpose. All the natural world around us, and the universe beyond appears to be here as a result of purposeful design – it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to show that this conclusion is erroneous."

Now really, Do you think I have a durden to disprove fairies too? Like I say we can explain things without god. You are the guys claiming his existance, the burden is on you. I have not seen him, you have to prove he exists.

"Well, it would appear that if intelligent human beings are having difficulty reverse engineering it, then the probability of it happening without the intervention of purposeful intelligence is a non-starter – that is of course, unless that conclusion is philosophically unacceptable to you from the outset?"

Now that is incredulity.

"Ah yes the atheist's trump card! My understanding is that Yahweh is, and was, and is to come. He has always been and He always will be. I appreciate that this answer is not acceptable to those who pose the question, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is the answer. Ultimately, it is the answer whether we understand it or not. I'm not claiming to understand it by the way, just in case you wondered! There is a big difference between accepting a fact and understanding a fact. I accept the theory of quantum mechanics, but I don't understand it."

42 is an answer, but it does not make it right. There are a couple of other points here 1 you believe this to be an answer. Where is your evidence? 2 you do not understand the answer, so how can you derive it logically? 3 you are making an unproven assumption based on an unproven assumption here

"You seem to arbitrarily award yourself the right that your Creator should communicate with you on your terms in order to prove His existence beyond a shadow of doubt."

First, do not call your god my creator, this is preaching, not discussing details about its existace. 2 If he wants me to know about him, then it is only reasonable for him to do so in a way I will grasp (and according to christians he should know how to). Or does he only do that to other people like thomas when he asked for proof?

"Yet at the same time denying the plain evidence of the natural world and the universe, which even the most eminent atheistic biologists agree "looks as if it is the result of purposeful design". Evidence which if not denied in the name of a naturalistic philosophy, would lead you to seek further communication from Him on His terms ."

Sorry, you seem to suddenly jump to your god alone being the greator here. We seem to have mossed out several wery important intermediate proofs here. Again? what evidence. Simplistic observation is not evidence.

"I don't know what your experience of the Christian faith was, but reading between the lines of your posts it was obviously very bad. That being the case the individual/s responsible have a lot to answer to, despite this it is not reasonable to tar all "Christians" with that brush (which I'm sure in reality you don't) and I think that the "faith" described in the pages of the Bible is far removed from the Christian system evident in the world today."

I thought i was quite open about the fact others initially caused me to lose faith. However, I now realise there are plenty of other reasons not to believe in god. There are actually a few christains I respect as people - I would even be happy to buy you a beer if we ever met - even though you live in dollar :-)

Billy

1231. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #18234 by BillySands on January 19, 2007 at 4:48 am

"Morality is something that is hardwired into us from God as well. The law of God is written on our hearts."

Really? is that why the bible also tells us we must learn right from wrong? Guess god is confused or perhaps more likely a human?

1232. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18089 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 9:04 am

"Yep - D - you got it right. Which is why the first two comments on this site give Wombats a bad name!"

Really David, is that any christ like way to behave by comparing a person that jesus loved so much to die for as something less than the image of god? I suggest that you apologise and show some of that christian love you are commanded to do. After all, getting peoples backs up is not doing the message of your delusion any good now is it?

I remember you taking exception to someone on your troll thread who said that you bullied people, but that insulting comment is exactly what a bully would do. I think your congregation needs a real moral example like Richard Dawkins. (shame ghandi is unavailable)

The more of your posts I read the more convinced i am that you are a strategically shaved baboon that someone has placed in a suit that is just randomly hitting the key board. Either that or you have just been down the idiot shop and stuffed your trolley with goodies off the shelf. Youre bizzare behaviour is perfectly explained in a Darwinian model

1233. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #18069 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 6:38 am

I no more 'know' God exists, than Dawkins knows he does not.

Is this really The same David robertson that said he is as sure of the ressurected jesus as he is of his own wife????? Stop trying (and failing) to score pathetic points. Or to put it in a way you can understand " Dawkins is bigger than your god and is going to batter him. Your god is a sexually confused pussy and the holy spirit is the work of satan. poo, big jobs nah nah nah

You have an innate sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from?

Where does the atheists morality come from? or the hindus? Morality is often linked to social context, and your bible is a good example of that with its righteous hate of others and a god who thinks it is OK to murder children. Morality is a social survial skill that evolved to suit the individual.


And what if that sense is itself wrong?

What, like stoneing homosexuals. However, your comment is hardly evidence. What if you are wrong concerning Allah's or the spagetti monsters moral code?

hat if for example your innate sense of right and wrong tell us you that it is ok to kill white people or women, or disabled babies?

What like god telling joshua to kill cannanite women and children? (oh and animals too for added nastyness). god actually doesn't seem to like disabled folk either. In Lev. 21:16-23 God said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the Lord by fire. He has a defect.... because of this defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary...." (Lev. 21:16:23). Yet he makes them that way
(Psalms 139:13) "For you formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb"

Then, there are murderers like jack the ripper and george bush who say god told me to do it.

If it is innate who is to say that is wrong?
Exactly, because there is no higer moral being. Yes, that may be unpalatable for you, and an emmotional objection will be your response. However, that does not give us carte blanche to do what we want, there are still consequences of our actions (if only more christians realised this), and if discovered, we will end up being selected against. Basically, our morality (naturally selected) is a cost -benefit balance between what you can get away with and the punishment (by society) of getting caught. We work to maximise our own agendas (whether knowingly or not).
Tell me Dave, immagine you have 2 choices, both women who you like (pretend you are not married for the sake of arguement). Both have Identical personalities, but physically, one is the woman of your dreams, and the other one looks like johnny vegas in a dress. Which one would you choose as your wife and why? And the fact you choose the babe is entierly consistant with Darwinism. You may not realise it, but by choosing the good looking one you are also being nicer too her than the ugly one - That is Darwinism - you want the most desirable children that you can get, because they will be most likely to reproduce with higher quality individuals themselves. So where is your god then?

I'm bored with you now, laugh at you later (if Im not picking my nose or something)

1234. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18052 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 4:40 am

Shaun,
The argument from incredulity applies equally to both sides of this debate - it just depends what you are incredulous about!

No. A rationalist tries to find a rational explanation. We do not say "I dont know, it must be god". Ignorance is no reason to believe in god. Why do you not believe in fairies then? (think about the point, not the actual words)

"An intelligent God with a purpose, responsible for the order and complexity of life or abiogenesis?"

Where is the evidence? Again, ignorance is no arguement. We can make some of what is needed in "prebiotic simulations"

There is evidence for design and purpose. There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

Please provide some, but again it boils down to ignorance, and some have already posted on evidence for abiogenesis here. We can make the molecules requires by purely physical processes. Who designs gods then? What is your evidence that he does not need to be designed?

Billy said:"Would the real God please make himself known?"

He has to those who are willing to see it, and He will even to those who don't want to see it. All in good time Billy and not according to your demands or mine!

This is just an offensive lie to those who genuinely sought. It is also a statement steeped in self delusion. Can you actually back up this statement? If you want to believe in fairies enough, you will. So what you are really saying here is make yourself believe and you will believe. That is self delusion, and that is how I and others who lost their faith got by. It is a purely internal process and most certainly does not prove gods existance, and of course, mulslims etc would say the same about their gods too.
Cheers

Billy

1235. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18047 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 4:13 am

Looks like David Robertson is back to his moronic best. Got anything constructive to say? No? didn't think so. Anything intelligent to say? No???? To be honest, christian fundies are such a wacked out bunch of space cadets that you can be forgiven for thinking this were real.
Lets see, atheists dont believe in god because there is no evidence. Christians believe in god because some self contradictory and historically inaccurate book written by a culture who believed the sun (created after the earth) orbited a flat 6000 years old earth that has water above it says so. Is this the level of intelligence you aspire to David? Why dont you just try and find some real evidence for you delusion (sorry faith) instead pf acting like a stupid little child trying to win a point by insulting atheists. What would jesus do david? (If he wasn't a 2000 year old maggot farm that is) Grow up and stop acting like an idiot (presuming it isn't an act)
Atheist love
Billy
PS, did I tell you about the christian biochemist I know who believes men have a rib missing because of one of the contradictory creation myths found in the bible? Man you are an intelligent lot, as evidenced from your thread and church site. Is thee anything humane we can do for these sorry people?

1236. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18030 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 2:45 am

I wonder why Theo seems to ignore verifiable and reproducible radioactive decay as as a means of dating in favour of a set of myths from an ancient tribal culture. THAT IS NOT VERY REASONABLE.
I have asked this many times, can anyone produce any positive evidence of the existance of any gods that are not open to liberal and contrived interpretation, or appeal to current gaps in our knowledge? The bible is no evidence. Even if it was historically true (and it isn't), that fails to produce verifiable evidence - afterall, anyone can make up a historically accurate book and invent a god for it. Your messianic prophecies all fail too (read earlier discussion about micah 5:2 and the virgin birth - I'm not going over it again. So, were is the evidence? All I hear from some is an arguement from incredulity, and from others, some wild interpretations that are far from clear and apply to Babylon and not Rome. Would the real God please make himself known?

1237. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #17645 by BillySands on January 15, 2007 at 9:14 am

Hi Fedler,
I think I'll skip Davids next article, but from what you say, he seems to overlook the changing morality of his own bible/religion. Why do christians not stone people for the slightest misdemeaners any more?
My personal view of morality is that it is not concerned with an absolute right or wrong, but with what is good for the individual. Biologically, murder for example, would be wrong because if you are caught, your own reproductive fitness is compromised (jail/cut off from society/executed), so there is a good evolutionary advantage in not murdering (and you will be less likely to be murdered too). It is a similar story with a lot of moral issues.
I wonder if David feelks that he has the free will to be attracted to another man - I know I couldn't, and many homosexuals cant choose to be attracted to the opposite sex either. In fruit flies, there is a gene (called fruitless) that determines male sexual orientation - we can make homosexual flies in the lab. There is growing exidence for genetic involvement in humans here too. Predisposition to some mental ilnesses and agression seem to have a genetic basis too, with isoforms of the dopamine receptor being implicated.
It seems to me that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour are totally explainable in darwinian terms, and the "good" ones can be largely explained in terms of kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
The bible is a book of disgusting moral values, with only a few good bits (that other religions came up with first). I feel sorry for people like David who think they need a book to tell them right from wrong (Rom 7:7?). The rest uf us non christians seem to know better without it. The most immoral people I know are actually christians - I think they think it is OK to do whatever they want, because they are deluded into thinking god will forgive them. I like to think I do my best to undo any wrongs I do to people, not so with some christians I know (not all).

Out of interest, did David produce any evidence this time? What about his reason for believing in moral absolutes? These are kind of rhetorical, because I can guess the answer.

1238. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17615 by BillySands on January 15, 2007 at 5:46 am

just time for a quick observation. When you ask a theist why god doesn't just reveal himself and settle the issue of his existance, you get a whole load of bizarre answers as to why "he" doesn't. So, the point is if god doesn't want to reveal himself to sceptics, then why are there so many people trying to argue a case for him then? If you believe he is real, but will not show himself to us, then why do theists bother to try and "prove" his existance to us?

1239. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #17023 by BillySands on January 10, 2007 at 6:21 am

Shame on you, David Robertson. Not only have you once again appealed to authority, but you have cherry-picked just the first part of Darwin's quote, and failed to record his later reasoning, which led to his agnosticism.

Oh dear David....
Well spotted Paul. That is a common trick by theists to try and make a point. That is why I questioned his connway morris quote, to call his bluff. i'm sure he has not read that either. It displays that David has not read about the subject and is just swallowing what someone told him. Someone who he wants to believe. Not a very critical or honest way of looking at things, and just confirms that David knows the answer he wants regardless of the evidence.
The alternative is that he has read it in context, and he is either thick or a liar with an intention to decieve. Either way, it is pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest of him. With such a lack of critical thinking and blindly swallowing the words of others, it is easy to see why he has not left his childhood delusion of god behind him.
Work commitments mean I wont be around much (and the people on Davids site can have some peace too), but David you have clearly shown me all that was wrong with my former theism, so thanks and keep up the good work for Dawkins

1240. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17022 by BillySands on January 10, 2007 at 6:06 am

Guys,
Due to work commitments etc, this will be my last post for a while - I'm sure some of you will be very sad. If anyone really wants a point answered, I think my email should alert me to any PMs that you may send.
Theo
"Wouldn't that require intelligent design?"

Told you that you would shift the goal posts! And no, it does not nessecitate ID, it would just show we can copy what is already there. I think creating a cell would prove only that. I think we would need a long time to let one evolve though, so start off the experiment and wake me in one billion years time. Same point to Ben Dover


"I think E=MC2 shows matter/ energy is not everlasting.


Not only that, I just remembered the concept of anti matter! Silly me!"

You'll be an atheist again soon enough


Your special appeal to a designer makes your hypothesis even more unlikely by adding even more complexity (the need to explain the existance of a complex designer). It is strange that you realise the difficulty of this approach in any possible pan-spermia explanation, but ignore it when hypothesising a designer.


If indeed there was a creator, the next question would be who created the creator, obviously someone with greater power and intelligence. And who created that creator? It would also have to be someone with greater power and intelligence, and so it would keep on going where it would point to a being possessing infinite qualities, an eternal ultimate creator. Which just so happen to be type of Being described in the bible.

No it wouldn't. Why not just state matter always existed with that logic? and cut out the added complexity of a god. This sounds very much like an arguement from incredulity, and as such has no weight to it

Mark
You still don't seem to have acknowledged that, irrespective of the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, Isaiah 36:11 prevents application of Deut 28:49 to Aramaic-speaking invaders, even city-besieging ones: "we understand it" explicitly contradicts "you will not understand". Deuteronomy 28:49-57, which is all one description of a specific invader, therefore cannot apply to Babylon.

A couple of ponts here, the word conveys clarity (like obscure regional variations btw there are dundonians and there are dundonians). Isaiah also does not tell you if all on the wall could understand it (thought Babylonians spoke Akkadian anyway. Read Lammentations, There it talks about all the points you make and ascribes them to Babylon - described as far away, mentions cannabalism etc etc.

1241. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16557 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 10:19 am

Mark, Thought you may be interested in this:
"Babylon is scripturally described as the great eagle with a head of gold. Babylon is the great eagle that comes unto Lebanon, with another great eagle shooting forth her branches in Ezekiel 17. The king of Babylon comes to Jerusalem and takes the king and the princes and leads them with him to Babylon. "Behold you among the heathen and regard and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which you will not believe, though it will be told you. For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess... they are terrible and dreadful... horses swifter than leopards... fly as the eagle... come all for violence: their face shall sup up as the east wind... scoff at kings. Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god."

1242. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16544 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 9:27 am

Hi Mark,

Was actually thinking about greek when I made the aramaic comment (was thinking about Antiochus IV at the time) DOH!
However, the word to understand "shama" is defined thus: a primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.; causatively, to tell, etc.). That is not at variance with the fact that daniel still had to learn the language of babylon. Although I speak the same language as the, I dont understand Dundonians, so the same word could be used here. Ever Read any Robert Burns, and how much sense does it make to you?
I still dont buy the eagle though. It just is not specific ennough. I still go with babylon

1243. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16536 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 7:28 am

Posted this response to his recent article on davids site
Oh dear, David is preaching to the converted again, as usual, I find that I can not bear to read his poor quality criticisms for any length of time.

Let me set you straight, Dawkins' argument of religion being a by product of other pshychological processes does not depend on his proof that god does not exist. If we make a massively illogical assumption that your god alone exists (we have at least 33 million to chose from), then we still have to explain why people have devoted time etc to 33 million other gods, who in your monotheistic view are false and therefore, their worship is pointless. Dawkins backs up his claims with experimental studies. Other than the fact you don't like what he has to say, what do you have to back up your beliefs?
to quote from Martin's signature
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Henry Roberts, Historian, (1901-71)

Perhaps, you could actually quote conway morris in context. You seem to personally think we should bow to the authority of experts in their field (as long as the agree with you), so what does a paleontologist know about anthropology? I'll bet it is taken out of context too. Dawkins is an expert in his field and says you are wrong. Hmmm, how do we decide who is correct? I know, evaluate the evidence for ourselves. This is a general deficiency in your articles and discussion with you on the RDF. PRESENT EVIDENCE. Rational people decide for themselves, and not believe because someone else says so (waits for predictable ad hominem)

Why would atheism be a meme?

Again, you ignore evidence and just dismiss off hand.

How do you explain other religion existing, if not through cultural inheritance?

Poor stuff Dave. I may deal with the rest later

Readers may wish to see how badly David's arguments are doing on the Dawkins site for yourself. Some of the people on this site have a better grasp of the subject and a better manner than David. Feel free to come on the threads for yourself. Be respectful and atheists will generally respect you (no guarantees though)
http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson
http://richarddawkins.net/article,460,10-myths---and-10-truths---about-atheism,Sam-Harris

Sorry if this seems harsh, but at least it is an honest evaluation

1244. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16531 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 6:05 am

"Unicorns are only found in the king james version"

They are also in the WBS. It also mentions other mythical creatures like leviathon and behemoth

1245. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16528 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 5:53 am

gimlibengloin
"Nothing would persuade me to give it mate but please don't take that personally."

Dony worry I wont. Do I know you? or is it something embarrasing like seymour Butts? :-)

"I have to confess that I havn't read your responses yet to my last post as "Jack Sparrow" before the website changed its posting rules."

Thanks a lot! I put a lot of effort into them. I have noticed this before. Is there really any point?

"However, the evolutionist Steven M Stanley wrote, "in the absence of a fossil record...we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis" [p2].
So Stanley asserts that only fossil evidence makes the theory anything worth considering. Yet on page 39 he admits, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid" (Macroevolution:Pattern and Progress)"

Well, if you read my posts!......
First point, I have said this before, don't quote others, provide evdence How old is the quote? I have had 150 year old quotes from Darwin used as "evidence" against evolution.
Second, i have referred you to molecular evidence in the past! There is also the evidence of homology and ontogeny too - read my posts and links, or I wont bother wasting my time!

Theo
"Oh! really! so science HAS produced a living self-replicating cell from raw chemicals? So life really originated by spontaneous generation...wow.
can you give me evidence of this?...please?"

You miss the point. Nothing has been refuted. We can make the appropriate molecules though. Just because it hasn't been done yet is not a refutation (and when we do, you will move the goal posts again) Can you personally build a computer from sand, malachite and ethylene? no? others can. You just dont know how to.

"Even if that were so, it would not justify my claim but would make it on par with what some scientists claim. Although nonsensical, I could ask a reverse of of the question as is there any evidence that verifies that that matter always existed.


Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy - Scientifically Matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

If this law as changed recently please let me know"

This is a straw man. You make as assumption that all scientists believe energy/matter always existed (this is not true) and I think E=MC2 shows matter/ energy is not everlasting.

Your special appeal to a designer makes your hypothesis even more unlikely by adding even more complexity (the need to explain the existance of a complex designer). It is strange that you realise the difficulty of this approach in any possible pan-spermia explanation, but ignore it when hypothesising a designer.

1246. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16197 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:37 pm

"I presume your referring to "Jack Sparrow" who I did post under until the website changed its rules of admission. One has to learn from others mistakes as well as one's own and a pseudonym is certainly an effective way of distancing oneself from any insults and makes posting less stressful. I suspect this is why atheists also post under pseudonyms eg Phlogiston, goddogit, satanhimself etc."


Hallellujah, god did actually give me the gift of prophecy after all, now all I need is the gift of healing that I asked for :-)

Seriously what's your real name?

1247. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16193 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Hey David,
What a lot of evasive hot air. Again you try and appeal to the authority of others. If you dont understand torbjorns comments, how can you refute them? oh that's right, you didn't, you apeal to authority. Why not take some time to understand it and think about it. You clearly are the one who knows what answer he wants, but cant defend his position. Why do you bother? how many wavering theists is that now that you are sending towards atheism. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
Nor do you get paul's point either. Your answer would embarass a child. BY ASKING FOR EVIDENCE OF AD HOMENEMS, YOU REALLY ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP HERE. It is becoming painful to watch.
I see your church are considering shutting down their message board because you want to pretend to have a nice public image. Why give folk a false impression? that's dishonest

1248. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16192 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Theo, read this on the flood
http://www.google.com/custom?q=flood&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org

"I can't 'prove' that a Brahmin does not exist but then their seems to be no reason to suppose that he does. Even Hindus give up on any pretence to historical validity in their scriptures. This is not so with the New Testament where historians have used it with success in historical reconstruction and research."

Josphus is generally acurate,afterall, he places the census of quirinius 8 years after the death of herod
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

1249. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16187 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 11:54 am

gimlibengloin
"I am still waiting for proofthat Brahmin does not exist"

Thats absurd. We were discussing Josephus' writings which are acknowledged as historical at least when referring to the Second Temple period. The testimony concerning Jesus occurs within that. Therefore, unless we have good reason to take it as a inserted forgery we should accept it like the rest of Josephus."

No it isn't. My point is - as has been discussed here by several people, there is that there is a lot of good reasons to believe that josephus never wrote that verse. And that you seem to be one of those theists that demand absolute proof of anything that does not suit you, but you require very little reason to believe what you believe. Therefore, to show how pointless your demand for such proof is, I challenge you to show that Brahmin does not exist. The point is that absolute proof is hard for anything, so we have to go with what is reasonable, and if you can not counter the problems with the authenticity of the testimonium flavium, then we will just have to agree to differ. I think It is very naive of you to say that because it is there we should accept it, especially since so many learned christian scholars dispute its authenticity. Like I say, it breaks up the sandwiching paragraph. that's pretty damn good evidence of an interpolation, then there are the textual problems. Why dont you accept the koran is the word of god?

"is gimlibengloin Jack/Dylan in disguise?"

Do you have a translator for this question?"

You just sound like some one else

all the best Billy

1250. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16176 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 8:16 am

gimlibengloin 578
It is true many people have had bad experiences of christians (I certainly am one - at least it started me questioning), but your comment is really doing what you say you dont like in atheists. There are also plenty of humanist charity workers too. All of which is irrelevant to the point of the arguements here. I do however think that the behaviour of some christians can be best explained in terms of there being no god.
Tell us your best joke and see if we laugh:-)