1351. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132939 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Al, having read this

His name is Adnan Okhtar. He runs an anti-evolution publishing group in Turkey

I do believe he cropped up in this site once, what, a year ago? Giving free copies of his cretinist book. Apparently very slick and nice - the recipients were rather surprised at how much it cost to produce. Think it was a story in the NY Times.
You should read the comments section - if ever people start laying into Americans for being somewhat deluded, this will provide enough ammo to show it is a trans Atlantic phenomenon. That and the Wee Flea. And Mark Taunton...who seems to have dropped out of sight.

1352. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132918 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

From Mitchell Gilks

saying atheists threaten believers freedoms and liberties? Is he trying to incite violence?

and Annabanana

Yes, all 98 lbs (44 kg) of this little atheist is a threat to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all those theists out there.

(44kg? Damn girl - you need to go on the special Goldthorpe Diet. Pies, curry and beer for a week with a break on Sunday to catch your breath!)
Interesting comments - I just received this from a friend..http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/extremecreationists.htm
I think you'll like this

I have in front of me a book by Harun Yahya called The Dark Clan, which explains that evolutionary science is inspired by "a dark clan behind all kids of corruption and perversion, that controls drug trafficking, prostitution rings". Evolution is the "greatest deception in the history of science".

So you see - they do fear you!

1353. The coming religious peace

Comment #132909 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 11:53 am

At the very least we should try and push back the crazies to give the moderate people the time they need

Well, we could always give them a platform to highlight the sheer inanity of what they are suggesting...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/extremecreationists.htm

1354. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132417 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 6:18 pm

So, if I get this right, there is no evidence as such, just an interpretation of what one sees. You can believe in gods by everything around you because they show what you want to see. If you don't want to see it, then there is no evidence at all.
Eh?
Well, in a way, that makes sense. People believe in God. They pray for a sick person and lo and behold, a miracle cure is effected. Of course, when one digs deeper, one can also see the doctors at work and drugs being taken, but we don't need to see that - prayer worked! Now, should the same individual become ill again with the same disease and opted for the "prayer only" cure (it worked before, remember) - no doctors, no medicine, just him, Jesus and a few prayer friends and we see that he dies, does this mean it can be a sign that Jesus had other plans for him or that medicine saved him the first time?
I wonder...

In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.

In other words, make things up mentally to fit what you want to see, no matter how different it is to reality. The only way Dawkins will ever see God is to become irrational.
How does this explain all the other ex-religionists, all those that saw it was alla sham, all something wrong. How does that explain European secualrism?
Am I missing something?

1355. Fleabytes

Comment #132411 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Brian, I blame the Goon meme, myself...

1356. Fleabytes

Comment #132406 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 6:00 pm

I took Dawkins to mean: "delusion" when applied to an individual who was in a possession of information that could reveal the contradiction, and
"delusion" when applied to whole communities within which scientific knowledge and religion belief manage to coexist.

that's how I read it.

But I'm certainly out of place here, amongst the last few hundred or so comments. Bye.

Lack of classical education or, I hope, you are more mature? ;-) It seems to have strayed from the oasis of clear thinking and wandered the desert of silliness...

1357. Fleabytes

Comment #132398 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Wooter!

Oooh, touche!

1358. Fleabytes

Comment #132395 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Grunting! Hitting things with stick! Innumeracy!

1359. Fleabytes

Comment #132381 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Dawkins.Net wound up conceding that the book did indeed trounce the targeted god-deniers

Trounced indeed! I guess that's why one write latin verse and the others translate it (I have to admit I am very rusty now - and the Latin dictionary gathers dust on a bookshelf in Austria). Meanwhile, a hardened clique decide to compare the age of their computing virginity popping...
Yes, we are trounced. If only we knew what the arguments were to be trounced about, we'd show more trouncedness in our trouncing!

1360. Fleabytes

Comment #132350 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Oh, dear, tears rolling down my face now :-) As an Englishman of Yorkshire and Tirolean descent living in New Zealand and married to a Chinese wife of Nantong birth (it is a dialect island in a sea of Shanghai Chinese), I have too much to learn. I will stick to English and the odd Chinese phrase (ni hao, xie xie or sha ya, depending on mood and hao da which seems to cover all the conversational needs I have).
Right, back to topic....amo, amas, I met a lass... ;-)

1361. Fleabytes

Comment #132316 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Mensa, mensa, mensam, mensae...
Quick Latin primer remembrance to carry on in this thread. can't really do Spanish, but Portuguese was my first language. Of course, unlike the books, I forgot it all by the age of seven and never really learnt German (Austrian mother). Agora nao pove fala Protuguese! Und I rede Deutsch wie ein Tiroler!
Not that this has anything to do with Paula's piece, or ad hominem attackes (by me) on poor language teachers (who I hope will be on hand to correct my execrable attempts at writing the two languages outside of English I should be fluent at).

1362. The coming religious peace

Comment #132280 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I will be fine with religion when it adapts to the point where it is indistinguishable from rationalism.

Hmmm, sound like a miracle you're asking for! I'd be happy to have it as a mushy Anglicanism, full of pronouncements but of little substance :-)

1363. The coming religious peace

Comment #132276 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Problem is as I said I can't count on "Allah is love" winning over "Allah is deadly intolarance".

Not quickly, no, but I do think, depite this rising religiosity that appears to be happening, the Islam of death is losing it's flavour of the month status. I guess the Muslims didn't really factor in the fact that more of them would die by Islam's sword than any other religious persuation. Anyway, from small acorns mighty, etc, etc. This might also be a way of retrospective reflection and maybe reformation. After all, death and destruction often are followed by reconstruction and reconciliation...

1364. Fleabytes

Comment #132270 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Sorry Goldy. I was just reliving a moment of interaction with Richard the other night

I have to say imperious teacher voices do not type well here...
Have missed a weekend of RD Nettery - selling house and lantern festival and TR6 repair stuff means I have missed out on so much. Barely had time for a quick comment or two the last couple of days, so missed out on a bit of the banter...bloody real life, eh?

1365. Fleabytes

Comment #132261 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm

No Brian, let the languages teacher answer the question.

1366. Fleabytes

Comment #132259 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Is this what is referred to on this website as an "ad hominem" comment?

You are the languages teacher here. What does ad hominem mean?

1367. Fleabytes

Comment #132245 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Religious conflicts are probably less of a problem than non-religious ones, as all the one side has to do is convert to the other's religion, and there is no longer a problem.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So when is he becoming a Muslim, I wonder...
Krisking - yes, you do. Don't attempt to do so with a 1 year old child in the vicinity as I did. Doesn't work, trust me. I shall have to re-read my copy somtime, but as said child is now 2, things are still not condusive to good reading!

1368. Fleabytes

Comment #132232 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm

how do you mean?

How many pages have you got to read yet? How many pages have you read?
Read your list - AllanW has gone over it. Don't you think it sounds a bit...purile? Petulent?
Read the book, think and then pronounce.

1369. Fleabytes

Comment #132227 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Firstly I can't believe the other posters waltzed over your completely skewed and erroneous list.

It is Krisking we are talking about here. Nice enough but seemingly rather dim. Languages teacher, he describes himself. Makes one wonder about his lessons...
Steve

swamps the reader with evidence of how few official religious wars there have been

How is an official religious war defined? Enquiring minds want to know!
Paula, you get tehat book out :-) I'd love to help, but I can't for the life of me ever remember not not believing, as it were.

1370. Fleabytes

Comment #132205 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 1:05 pm

And you disagree, Krisking? Which part was factually wrong, may I ask...
Edit - except for this one (spelling corrected

because evolution has shown that God does not exist

Evolution has shown "holy" texts are wrong. Also calls into question the existance of gods in the formation of living things, especially considering most tell us they were made as they are now...
You are only on page 73 - aren't you jumping the gun a bit or do you like sounding infantile and misinformed?

1371. The coming religious peace

Comment #132200 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 12:57 pm

SilentMike

Religion is adaptive

You're right, it is. An article in the telegraph about a Muslim evangelist with a different message - love, not death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wpreacher123.xml

What happens if the moderating Muslims in Europe get drowned out by fundamentalists who want Sharia law?

Maybe they'll be swamped by veil wearing soft sharia hippies... ;-)

1372. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #132184 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Shrommer, this is what your views tend to end up doing...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/americas/24jamaica.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
If I may direct your eyes to this paragraph...

Disapproval of gays is an entrenched part of island life, rooted, Jamaicans say, in the country's Christian tradition. The Bible condemns homosexuality, they say. But critics say islanders are selective in the verses they cite, and the rage at gay sex contrasts sharply with Jamaicans' embrace of casual sex among heterosexuals, which is considered part of the Caribbean way.

Hopefully now you can understand our views more clearly...

1373. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131960 by Goldy on February 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I apologise, but it seems of such importance to religious people that I thought they would like to know

As far as I am aware, Steve, religious people live is the same world as us. They are subject to the same laws, media information, zeitgeist, if you will. They know what the current perception of homosexuality is, they know their distaste is currently at odds with the society they enjoy.
Why apologise? Shrommer knows his views are backward and abhorrent and yet he persisits in them - contrary to what his society teaches him.

1374. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131876 by Goldy on February 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Shrommer, I am glad I can provide laughs. Still nothing compared to the slack-jawed incredulity, followed by belly laughs you induce in me :-)
have to agree with something...

Goldy is trying to tell me that the Westboro Baptists follow a homophobic god, and that if my God is not homophobic, then I am not really a Christian.

What a load of codswallop!

It is indeed a load of codswallop - your Bible reading ahs induced in you a skill of looking at words yet failing to connect them to mean anything other than what you want it to mean. I'll draw a picture...WBC follow god of Jesus and everything and everyone (except them) is gay. You follow god of Jesus too...

Sex in God's way is for married couples - male with female, female with male

Animals get married? What a fatuous claim you are making there! Sex is sex. We humans indulge in it for pleasure as well as procreation. Indeed, see how all manifestations of your religion are geared to men's pleasure and women's subservience - Islam being the apex of this.

Sex outside of marriage is sinful for the homosexual and for the heterosexual

swiftly followed by

He loves the whole world, even while we are still sinners

So let me get this straight. Sex outside marriage is sinful, so pretty much all of creation is living in sin (marriage, as far as I can tell being a human construct). God loves the world so much he makes sure a pleasurable event is sinful and is happy to see every living thing apart from the sexually repressed human individuals (who, incidently, have to follow God via Jesus and seemingly after a particular sect of the Pauline faith to gain celestial favour) sent to hell for abominations.
Nice god you have there!

Double Bass atheist writes, "so it says in the Bible". Please show me where in the Bible it talks about people dying for their testimony of having witnessed the resurrected Jesus. I can't think of any right now. I am referring to historical accounts outside of the Bible (extra-biblical).

Give us one verifiable account then. You still haven't given me anything directly attributable to Jesus. All your "Jesus said..." appear to come from the pens of others...

1375. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131653 by Goldy on February 22, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Luke 13, NIV

This is Jesus talking to a culture that disdained homosexuality.

I believe the reference you gave is attributed to a bloke called Luke. This is what Luke tells us he heard that Jesus was meant to have once said...and let's not forget Luke had an agenda so that piece you so generously shared is already highly suspect.
I don't think Jesus said anything like that at all. I fact, I don't think Jesus said anything about gays or homosexuality that wouldn't be considered highly homophobic today.
Give us someting that Jesus himself said. Not what Mat, Mark, Luke or John had written down, not what Paul decided Jesus had to say, not something the Synod of Niceae decided to tell the early (and subsequent) Christians - give us something Jesus verifiably said himself.

1376. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131651 by Goldy on February 22, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Goldy in post 222 really confuses me when she says that my calling homophobic discrimination a sin makes me sound like a homophobe. I don't get it, but it's probably just that Goldy didn't get it.

HE did get it. You disn't. Just why do Christians always assume I am female? Odd bunch you lot!

Now, let's ditch all this religious shit to one side, shall we - quoting your book at me makes as much sense as quoting Harry Potter. It is just a book. Luke was some sort of space cadet writing about...well, arcane religious nonsense with the old Egyptian Book of the Dead in the back of his mind.
You Christians have all misinterpreted everything and believed the biggest load of tosh since Mithras got you killing bulls and drinking blood.
You said you consider the homosexual act a sin. Why? What are they meant to do, converse in erotic rhyme? People want to have sex, it's what they are programmed to do. If you have a problem with that, blame that insanity inside your head you term God, for apparently he or she made everyone the way they are. He planted a tree of knowledge in that garden knowing full well what was going to happen. He knew in advance everything that was to be - so gays are part of his plan. The fact that you would stand to one side and let them be killed as part of his plan is the sickening thing.
And just what the fuck is the Lamb's Book of Life? Can you get it in the bookshops? So everyone's name is in it? How did this Lamb feller know about them? Hindu scripture (apparently they have a book with everyone's name and deeds listed - globalisation is not a new thing then).
Shrommer, tell me, what is your god? Another father of Jesus? Another interpretation of the NT that is completely different to all the others?
You are homophobic - you follow, apparently, the same gods as the Westboro Baptists. Prove you follow a different god and you no longer are a Christian, no longer follow your god and no longer can be considered a Christian.
And I am still male.

1377. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130854 by Goldy on February 21, 2008 at 11:56 am

You can deem something new may be; A giant frog that lived million years ago was found. It was same as the ones living today

Pah! Child's play. Any frog can last a few million years. Look at flies, or dragonflies. Apart from size, they are the same as today. Indeed, I shall raise the stakes a bit and educate you - here, read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
You say the blind watchmaker missed it, I say if it isn't fucked, don't fix.
So amateurish, Wooter, so amateurish. You can't even get an old enough organism to illustrate your point. Sigh...

1378. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130532 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 7:24 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/19/scipeers119.xml
Seems pertinent here

1379. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130515 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Yes, they have to label and what do you find on food package labels? Patent #23078 and other chemical names which mean very little to the average consumer

This was sort of a wee issue here (very wee, I have to admit). A TV personality with an orange juice company was shown reading off the chemicals in a competitor's orange juice. First thing he mentioned was ascorbic acid...and the implication being his orange juice had none of that filthy chemical muck in it..
Edit - just had a look and blow me...

Squeezed Orange Juice
At Charlie's we've become fairly well known for our great tasting orange juice. Which is suprising because we don't really do much to it.

You'd think all those other "outfits" who do lots would be more famous. You know, the ones that add water, sugar and preservatives to a gooey orange concentrate . But they're not.

No, it seems people still prefer our original not from concentrate orange juice. Maybe it's because we simply find the best plump oranges and squeeze 'em, add a dash of vitamin c, pasteurize it (think milk) and deliver it to your local.

What ever the reason, we'll just keep doing what we do. After all, it seems that's just the way you like it.

Cheers
Marc & Stefan

Look at that. Call ascorbic acid by a name everyone knows and you can throw it in the mix. I guess it's all in the name...

last edit. http://203.152.114.11/decisions/02/02062.rtf

1380. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130514 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Someone asking about feathers and flight here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/20/scidino120.xml
Before we got wildly sidetracked...

1381. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130512 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 6:33 pm

By pests I was mainly referring to rats and possums, rats first introduced by the Maori and possums introduced by europeans.
Te Papa gave me the wrong idea about the mozzies, didn't it tell me flies were introduced by europeans too?

:-) I have read there are flies in the Antarctic so I can't see why the little buggers couldn't have been here plaguing all beforehand. Sodding things.
I have no idea really what was here before and what immigration brought. I know it is a bit fraught though having seen a documentary about Jamestown in the US. Who would have thought the humble bee and worms could wreak such havoc!
Been a while since I have been to W'ton and Te Papa. Should go sometime - get out of Auckland for a bit and unwind.
There was a bit in the paper about introduced species in the UK wreaking havc too. Tried to find it but could only come up with this which is interesting but totally off topic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/18/scicanoe118.xml
Are you interested in it, Josh?

1382. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130510 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 6:23 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27cow-t.html?scp=1&sq=cattle, africa&st=nyt
It's not about the food, it's about the money.

1383. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130509 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm

From what I can see, GMO have great benefits for this and that, but do we need them? As Bonzai said, there appears to be a surplus of food out there using the "old" methods. Indeed, a massive surplus if the waistlines of the world population are anything to go by (http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/). So why spend so much time, effort and money doing it? My suspicion is economics - the concern for the "starving in Africa" comes waaaaaaay down in the list of priorities.
I know there are benefits - I agree with JuxtaMonkey. I just can't see that these benefits have anything to do with the GM market, any more that pharmaceutical companies really want to cure illnesses.
As it is, I buy whatever strikes my fancy. I am, after all, a male and hence never get what i need in the basket but what I want. I have organic oranges, apples, figs, lemons and feijoas, but that is mainly because they grow in my garden. The odd bug is neither here nor there. Apples are a bit of a bugger because they are seasonal (as are feijoas) but the frenzy of cider making makes up for that.

1384. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130486 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Before New Zealand was settled it had no rodents, no flies or mosquitos, no pests of any kind!

Had mosquitoes http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjz/2005/011.php
You'll have to define pests - I'll bet mites have been sitting in hosts for millenia. There are bats here too - not just birds and lizards. mammals were also here until sometime a long time ago (Wikipedia says 19 million years ago).
I remember reading one person's theory that mammals were here until relatively recently. Doesn't make sense that there are none at all. He blamed things like rising sea levels and tsunami for the lack of native mammals. You'll also have to define pests. I dare say the kea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kea) was as much a pest then as it is sometimes considered now.
Given that the classification of flora and fauna is a man made construct, one could argue that it makes no sense anyway, never mind with all the extra DNA baggage we carry around showing our evolutionary past. But I like it - works for me :-)

1385. Fleabytes

Comment #130483 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Relevant to the topic and that post, The Bishop has been posting in the last day or so. I could well be wrong, but the combination of lowbrow reasoning, rudeness, question-dodging, references to the "right kind of Christian", the idea that atheists are going to destroy the world and general word use, suggests Flea-ness to me.

That would explain the itchiness I seem to be having today :-)

1386. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130429 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm

:-) damn, got that Duffman theme in my head now.

1387. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130427 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Mind you, on reflection, maybe the big G is a man after all - seems a shitty design to make someone come. Men, on the other hand (stop smirking in the back there, Jenkins Minor!), have everything they need to han...oh, brother, I'll stop now ;-)

1388. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130423 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 1:45 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7254523.stm
If there is a God, I'll bet he's a she! ;-)

1389. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130421 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

OK, folks, we've had our play. Now, back on topic. Bish is a person on his own, condemend to hell by every other denomination and condemning all others to hell. Heaven will be a great place for him, Jesus and God, though as the last two are but one, that just leaves him and god. Hope the conversation is better there than here, eh?
Darwin - why does he matter. What views would the Bish have? None, I suspect. I'll assume like krisking he can't quite wrap his nut around that.

1390. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130382 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I would disagree, entirely.....

but then we clearly see different things. You are committed to not believing in God, so you do not see.

I would disagree, entirely.....

but then we clearly see different things. You committed to believing in God, so you do not see.

1391. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130381 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Atheism is so easy.

Goes like this:

I don't believe in gods.

1392. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130378 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 12:48 pm

You are a one issue movement and don't like to grapple with the difficult issues of life

Yeah, we are, aren't we. Should do it the theists way - kill all the opposition. Burn them, like you did the Jews. Kill them, like you did the Amazonians and Cathars and Muslims. Behead them that don't believe, make them convert, by force if necessary. Kill them all - God will seek his own, so it doesn't matter who you kill. Make them submit to your yoke.
These athiest, they just don't uinderstand. Best just to kill them all, isn't it?

1393. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130373 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Al, they are not really slippery. They lie. Here, this line..

So I have heard. And they are wrong. They are behaving much as the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law which Jesus opposed. They have not understood their own scriptures.

So typical. This pretty much means they can say what they like in the smug satisfaction that they know they are right. They kill Jews with this line - after all, moderates and other Christ-killers really don't know what God's plans are because, well, shit, the voice in THEIR head is telling them the truth, fer Chrissakes! Everyone else is wrong - only they know the revealed truth because...well, they read the Bible and they can see which parts are allegorical and which parts are the given truth.
Of course an athiest can't win the argument - no one can. Even when they contradict themselves, that's a vistory for them because God told them - the other voices they heard before was Satan trying to lead them astray.
It is just so pointless. If it were up to me, I'd institutionalise them, put them in their narrenschiff and float them away. But it isn't up to me and unfortunately society condones - hell, encourages - these deluded, these lunatics. Thery drag us into wars for "the Glory of God", wars that pitch us against "Defenders of God". Their god, meanwhile, sits in that part of their brain that pitches him on high to watch the fools game for his sick enjoyment.
And still they can't see what is wrong...after all, it's not their god, not their religion, not their fucking anything and we, the normal people, have to lap up this shit and ask for more adn enjoy the death and destruction of all we hold dear for their amusement.

1394. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130359 by Goldy on February 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Heheheheheh! Enjoyable way to start teh day. Bish hops in, finds himself completely above his head and now leaves, grumbling about none of this is his god....
Either WeeF or someone taking the piss :-) I mean, c'mon - it doesn't sound like a serious theist. He bends a tad here and there, starts something then goes onto another topic, clicking every athiest button, as it were :-)
You are taking teh piss, eh, Bish?
And wooter, dear wooter, with his crippled dino-bird and self digesting stomach. Aaaah, how sweet and yet so breathtakingly stupid. I'll bet electric eels have him in a tizzy too (though really he shouldn't touch them - he has been warned) - I mean, how on earth can they shock other fish yet remain completely unfazed themselves???
A good start to the day :-D Cheers!

1395. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129872 by Goldy on February 19, 2008 at 5:33 pm

but for someone who has little understanding of medical conditions

You don't need to understand what you experience. I assume you have been ill, have had accidents, have had all the ailments that most of us have. You know what your body goes through, you know when you are ill, whether you will get better or when to panic and call the ambulance.
You know you catch the flu and you know what causes it. you know you can catch bacterial infections, indeed you have read in the papers about MRSA and their resistance to antibiotics - you teach languages, you can see the similarities of different languages, you can see, even in languages that seemingly bear no resemblance to each other, that are mutually incomprehensible, similarities and mutual ancestral langugeas, and yet you fail to grasp something as simple as evolution.
How? It's there in what you teach! Not a great leap of imagination to see the similarities in Nature!

1396. The Pagan Christ

Comment #129864 by Goldy on February 19, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Jesus said: 'Whoever hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man...'.

I beleive the correct way of putting that would be to say that Paul said that Jesus said...
Jesus wrote nothing down. We have everything Jesus said 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, hand. So much that is attributed to Jesus has antecedents so it makes it all a bit suspect.

As a follower of Christ, that's why the Bible is of particular importance, especially the New Testament. It is the standard by which conduct and motivation must be measured. You won't find that 'god hates fags' is in the Bible, as you will also not find that 'abortion is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord' is justification for murder.

When Mao, Stalin and even Hitler are no longer held up as examples of athiesm, we shall not hold up the Westboro Baptists and African Anglicans as examples of Christians. As it is, all you are saying is that your very own personal religion in which you follow Jesus as you think you see his teachings by selected readings of your interpretation of a "holy" book doesn't have the abominations described above. A lone voice in an ocean of condemnation - tells us something, methinks.

1397. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129802 by Goldy on February 19, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I guess I am mistrustful of cogent argument alone

But you believe in God?

1398. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129796 by Goldy on February 19, 2008 at 3:25 pm

I am told that bacteria can be seen to evolve in front of our eyes, and that flu changes all the time - it's still flu....

Curious that we must be distantly related to 'flu and yet it attacks us. I guess that is merely the nature of the natural world we are part of.

What do you mean, it's still flu. No shit! We're still mammals, dogs are still mammals. Flu (edit - I meant the virus. Obviously flu is the same. The virus is different) has changed because our bodies don't recognise it anymore. Besides, have you not thought maybe the flu is not the virus but our body's reaction to it. Flu is us, not the virus - so of course it is still the same. Like a burn - you get burnt by flames or by acid or by scalding hot water. Different media, all burning.
As for flu attacking us despite being distantly related...men are very closely related to each other and that hasn't stopped the attacking. Or even the eating, come to think of it.
What part is hard to understand?

I am also interested that no-one here appears to be looking forward and predicting any kind of future.

When you get the past sorted in your head, we can look forward. There is quite a bit of research into this area - indeed, flu vaccine people spend all their time looking into crystal balls trying to work out how the next mutation will affect the viri. But that is beyond ur remit. You get the past and present sorted first, then we'll proceed further.

1399. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129752 by Goldy on February 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Aaaah, the Quetz steamroller strategy? Should be interesting :-D

1400. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129748 by Goldy on February 19, 2008 at 2:32 pm

This is a mildly interesting topic, and I might be willing to throw a few thousand pounds at it, but £1.9 million? What a gratuitous waste of money. How many good (science) educations would that pay for these days? How many hungry people would it feed?

Funny things happen with money and it's destinations. However, you are not alone in thinking maybe funding goes to the wrong places. Here's a letter in the Telegraph...

Sir - It is almost incredible that, when the Government could have invested a few million in Longbridge and kept thousands of jobs, it can squander billions and put people out of work.

This isn't a short-term undertaking, and no one can really assess the damage to the banking industry or the effect it could have on other financial services.

S. T. Vaughan, Birmingham