Comments by BillySands

101. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #230108 by BillySands on August 14, 2008 at 9:28 am

SG, I just love the way you keep producing those little gems :-)

Has anyone hear hymns sung in gaelic with no music - that is dour!

102. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229887 by BillySands on August 14, 2008 at 4:50 am

Goldy, I,ve got it now http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page47#136485

Still only one other comment appears if you click on his other comments though

103. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229836 by BillySands on August 14, 2008 at 3:55 am

Sometimes I wonder if notveryclear at all is another RM sockpuppet.

Troll, I dont even read your posts anymore. That makes your purpose pointless - like you!

104. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229798 by BillySands on August 14, 2008 at 3:16 am

Can anyone provide that link where David Robertson boasted about the dodgy cheque? Philip thought he had found it, but that comment does not exist. I could only find 2 comments by "clearthinker" on the site. The site has been a bit funny recently though, can anyone else confirm this? Has he been deleting comments?

105. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229790 by BillySands on August 14, 2008 at 3:12 am

Wooter, still no answers I see. Thought you were on holiday - cant you even get that right?

106. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229136 by BillySands on August 13, 2008 at 6:14 am

Vaal

I have just added a few more comments including this one

David, you have just clearly demonstrated the insulting behaviour that we were talking about â€" well done â€" and it is here for everyone to see. So you now admit that you knew the death threat was a joke. Yet, if it had not been pointed out you would have been more than happy to continue this lie. Wilful lying is the only description that I can give this behaviour. For those who don't know, this guy is on a crusade to spread lies about atheism. He says we lack moral values, but he equated homosexuality with paedophilia and has boasted on Dawkins' site about the time he wrote a dodgy cheque to con a bus driver (want the links David?).

If you follow the link given above, you will see that the Lennox death threat was not a death threat at all, and you have taken something out of context

I think the more David rants, deeper the hole he digs for himself. Is lying and giving false witness acceptable Christian behaviour? Is it acceptable for ministers? I thought that was one of the issues against gay clergy â€" you cant be openly "sinful and a leader. Robertson has also sworn an oath (the westminister confession of faith)that claims that the pope is the antichrist â€" talk about alienating catholics and contributing to secular troubles?

I only have the behaviour of Christians like Robertson to go on, but it looks to me like being a Christian does not make you a moral person.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Unholy-warrior--Richard-Dawkins.4375690.jp

It's nice to get it out in the open :-)

107. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229035 by BillySands on August 13, 2008 at 3:08 am

I would like to say "retard= billlysands" but I would not so I will not since the bad words belong to the mouth that pops up.

(Because frankly your posts seem barely literate and barely coherent.)

That's because you are a retard! Let me put it even more simply for you - your ignorance is not evidence that your god exists.

Did the big words "comparative" and "genomics" confuse the poor little troll? Aaaaaw!

Oh pal, if you stand for a funny idea that worms are our ancestors, I would not criticize someone as coherent.

Sorry mate, I dont speak retard. Could you maybe draw it or something? Then I might be able to work out what drugs you are actually on.

Now my dearly deluded retard, any chance of you doing what was asked of you?

108. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228586 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

Aarf aarf aarf!!!

I could have done with a monkey hitting the drums and a cymbal - ba-boom - ting!

Wonder if DR can play the drums?

109. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228583 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 8:21 am

John 1937

How exactly did henslow help formulate Darwin's theory? If you want to make a point that darwinism does not mean atheism, lets have some evidence that god did it

110. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228580 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 8:17 am

Its all OUR fault, cos we bear the sin of Adam....

When you spell it out like that, people like DR are just fucking nuts!

Remarkable that even some educated people believe this.

And David Robertson believes it too!

111. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228543 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 7:32 am

Ian Bamlett,

This is also worth reading http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

112. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228442 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:52 am

Logicel,

I think the shit he is full of will ensure lush greenery anyway.

113. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228437 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:47 am

P.S. - I'm training my bladder, as we speak.

More tea irate?

114. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228431 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:42 am

I may be forceful - rude even at times - but I reserve the right to be. Individuals like David Robertson do not deserve to be treated well in discourse. Neither he, nor his views, are worthy of respect.

Seconded! He deserves ridicule and should be exposed as a lying fundamentalist - then preferrably burned at the stake and urinated on - quote mine that David!

115. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228425 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:31 am

I just left a comment on the scotsman for David
"Regarding David Robertson's comment. He is indeed a regular poster on Dawkins' website. What he has however forgogot to mention is that he goes to great trouble to wind people up and insult them. A very small selection of some of his posts can be seen here http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2925,On-TV-The-Genius-of-Charles-Darwin-Presented-by-Richard-Dawkins,Richard-Dawkins-Channel-4,page5#228406

He most definately has not recieved death threats either. The incident that he refers to - which he well knows was a joke, but he has distorted that to demonise atheists. He has also conveniently forgot to mention the death threats that have been thrown at atheists on that site. Maybe he would also like to bring up a certain incident where he knowing signed a dodgy cheque to hire a bus. So David, how about a bit of honesty and retract those statements?"

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Unholy-warrior--Richard-Dawkins.4375690.jp?CommentPage=1&CommentPageLength=1000#3112106

116. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228383 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 1:48 am

isthatclear = wooter?

= retard!

117. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228379 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 1:35 am

Isthatclear

How about trying to refute what evolution can actually explain very well- like the fossil record and comparative genomics.

Asking questions you do not know the answer to does not disprove evolution!!!!!!

118. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228014 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 9:18 am

I don't even think we would have had free will if satan wouldn't have pissed god off in the first place. Stupid stupid stupid.

Yes, that's a bizarre one. You have a special creation that you want to be a loving father to, so you create the ultimate source of Evil and put it in with your kids.

Kaiserkris, you are so lucky to be able to visit the Tyrrell - I'm jealous (I almost bought an Albertosaurus tooth yesterday (discovered by Tyrrell) I ended up getting a Carcharodontosaurus one instead though

119. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228009 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 9:04 am

But in the Christian point of view, it was put there to show that he wanted humans to have free will. And we chose, and now we suffer the consequences of the bad choice.

Dont you just love bollocks - oops, sorry theology?

I have always thought that if god gave man free will, then it is not free.
God "Here mate, have some free will"
Adam "but I dont want it"
God " tough! I'm forceing it on you".

Also, is his choice truely free if he has to behave under pain of death?

120. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228001 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 8:41 am

Right about the first half, wrong about the second. Man was supposed to have eternal life until they aquired the ability to know right from wrong. Which happened once they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Ignorance is bliss I suppose)

That's one of those "interpretable" things that make the bible so useless. After the fall, god (in his multiple personality form) was worried about man eating from the fruit of the tree of life and sent an angel to guard it (gen 3:22). It makes you wonder why it was there.

What I really dont get is how christians dont see punishing ignorant people as unjust.

121. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227947 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 4:37 am

and he couldn't even think of a way to make his message unambiguous and widespread.

What do you expect from a god who mixed up human language at the tower of babel in order to prevent people from communicating?

It really is sad that people live their lives enslaved to this mush

122. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227938 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 4:28 am

However, like the train wreck, an attentive observer can learn a lot. I'm just not sure what it is, however.

That RM is an attention seeker who has adopted DR's (lack of) personality, indulges in dishonest quote mineing, cant make up his mind and goes to the lavatory before getting out of bed in the morning (with out pulling his pyjamas down first)?

It is sad to watch

123. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227935 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 4:19 am

I'm not convinced that all this anti-God stuff needed to be there, because evolution in itself isn't proof that God doesn't exist.

Well, it is about Darwin and he lost his belief in the christian god - he had a problem with ichneumons:

"I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." (Letter to Asa Gray 1860).

Richard Morgan, do you have a point?

124. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227928 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 4:12 am

Tony A,

I would also argue that if we assume the Jesus story is true, then an atheist who sacrifices himself for another is making a greater sacrifice that jesus ever did. After all, he has no belief in the after life.

125. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227881 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 2:06 am

So indeed everything was good and perfect until 'the fall' (4004 BC).

Yeah, however, man was made without at least 2 qualities of god ("perfection")- the ability to know right from wrong - and eternal life - so "creation" was not perfect by the fact that man lacks qualities of perfection. Robertson never answers that one!

Reminds me at some postings I read from theists claiming that gravitation is based on sin

Yeah, I've read some similar rubbish about the second law of thermodynamics only appearing after the fall - total buffoonery!

126. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227873 by BillySands on August 11, 2008 at 1:38 am

SG,
What next? godhatesleekeatingtaffs.com?

The physical similarity between hargreaves and that twat So Macho is disturbing.

Quetz and I have reviewed it if anyone is interested.

127. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227632 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 11:50 am

I'm also noting bits for a blog post later.

Ditto.

128. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227623 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 11:43 am

However, I still recommend it to religious people I meet because it can help get them over the first obstacle in understanding that evolution is a fact

I always find it sad when people dont look at the evidence, but default to the bible.

Anyone else watching that pish on channel 4 just now called make me a christian?

129. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227611 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 11:32 am

Epeeist,

Have a good break, but remember that Glen coe is not the remnants of a supervolcano because David Robertson says such things never went boom before the fall - and all those dinosaur fossils on Skye are the work of the Devil.

130. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227568 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 10:01 am

While you are at where did evil come from?

Well, if you believe the bible, the only answer is god!

David, you keep banging on about your poor minister's salary. How much do you earn and do you have to pay a mortgage. My understanding is that most ministers dont. If that is the case, you are being a wee bit naughty there.

Finally as regards the 'debate 'issue. It is the cowards way out to say we won't debate because you will think you have won! RD uses the classic 'it will look better on your CV than mine'.

And what is your method of where you refuse to debate and accuse people of not understanding the bible. Does that mean that you will be answering my challenge on Isaiah 7:14, the census of quirinius, your boxing day tsunami atrocity etc.....?

Nah, Didn't think so!

Everytinme you write something you just make an arse of yourself.

Discuss the boxing day tsunami and prove me wrong - otherwise, you are just a wee bullshitting bawbag.

I am talking about others who have written - some of whom have posted on this site but have now given up in disgust.

Yeah, believe someone who tries to rip off honest bus drivers by writing dodgy cheques.

Since when was disgust an argument against a philosophical position - diddy! If find christian intolerance disgusting. Does that mean in your mind I have a valid argument againt its truth claims? You are either as daft as someone reading the Pope is the antichrist verse at celtic park or you are wilfully using double standards here.

Tell me David, did you brainwash your children with christianity or did you give other religions and atheism equal time?

131. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227488 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 2:55 am

Purves is unbelievably stupid, I don't care who she is, she can't write, can't think, is vacous, a silly woman, doesn't she know that the only good Christian is a dead one (or is that a homophobic, racist bigot) and probably thinks she is great because she has got Richard to respond.

Sounds like someone I know who thinks that the pope is the antichrist (and has no intentions of re-writing the WCF).Someone who believes that gays should burn in hell for all eternity. Some one who writes dishonest implications that we believe the only good christian is a dead one.

Steve, he is a strange one. David, account for mass extinctions, faults, volcanoes, fold mountains, meteor impacts, fossil fires etc......

132. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227483 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 2:37 am

His position is simple: Legs akimbo, body bent over double and head stuck up his own arse

That's how he gets sound to come out of it.

133. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227481 by BillySands on August 10, 2008 at 2:28 am

So David,
how do you reconcile your verbal bollocks on death before the fall with your tsunami article?

What actually is your position on evolution?

Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Another question David activley avoids - how is it just to punish folk when they didn't know right from wrong before eating that fruit.

I'm off to Edinburgh later to buy some evidence that animals did actually die before man!

I dont expect reverend tosspot will respond - it shafts his position somewhat

134. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226353 by BillySands on August 8, 2008 at 2:15 am

It's amaxing isn't it anyone who thinks they are an educated christian thinks they can dismiss an atheistic view of Darwinism as naive. They never say why it is naive by providing any evidence. Its quite patronising really

135. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224475 by BillySands on August 5, 2008 at 2:58 am

Has Richard had any further feedback from the children in the programme? It did show what a block religion is to clear thought

136. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223833 by BillySands on August 3, 2008 at 1:39 pm

No problem J Mac.

I think he must have a big fundie site of mined quotes containing certain key words that no one has bothered to read- especially him. He tried a while back to pass of some peer reviewed paper on T rex bone marrow as evidence for his case - they actually refuted it. These guys just show themselves up every time.

137. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223829 by BillySands on August 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm

J Mac, it is TX who is the retard for citing something irrelevant - not you!

138. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223800 by BillySands on August 3, 2008 at 12:36 pm

There is a phrase "Central Dogma" of molecular biology, meaning that DNA is transcribed to RNA which is translated to proteins. And while all fields of science overlap this central dogma is not a dogma of evolution as you imply.

What a dishonest chump - or a retard!

I'm sure you believe this, but if it were true, you wouldn't still be seeing sickle cell anemia cited as a beneficial mutation.

Look up myostatin and physical ability creotard! Or the mutation that helps pigeons escape falcons

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15846334?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

muppet!

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223353 by BillySands on August 2, 2008 at 4:39 am

TX answer your questions. Stop changing focus and generally muckspreading creotard bullshit when you have been challenged. Where is your evidence? You have been repeatedly asked to provide some positive proof - not one that falis to attack evolution.

So, hens with teeth?????

Are you a liberty student by any chance?

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223041 by BillySands on August 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

Interesting isn't it that he wants each and every step delineated before he would accept an evolutionary explanation

Has he ever seen his god? Has he ever met anyone who has seen his god? Has anyone he has met ever met anyone who has seen his god? How does he know the bible was even inspired by his god?

TX, answer your questions and if you are a good boy I'll give you a video on the eye to watch and you can ask us assinine questions like what use is 1/8th of an eye?

141. Is Killing Liberals a Hate Crime?

Comment #222842 by BillySands on August 1, 2008 at 1:49 am

Oh no, we are showing the dangers of religion again - David Robertson will be most upset with us!

142. Kung poo panda 'The Sex Lives of Animals' exhibit digs deep.

Comment #221801 by BillySands on July 30, 2008 at 6:36 am

Irate,
there is a video out there showing lesbian bonobos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zOlPsO6U4 . Reminds me of the Beavis and Butthead song "lesbian seagulls"

143. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221797 by BillySands on July 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

Dunno. Wouldn't this advantage be cancelled out by the health problems caused the inbreeding in isolated societies?

Yeah, thats one of the problems I have with it. It could also make a "new" disease more lethal (look at what happened when the christians introduced small pox to America). I also doubt that populations were truly isolated anyway. I suppose it depends how far back religion goes though.

Irate, does Kung poo panda taste like Kung po chicken?

144. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221683 by BillySands on July 30, 2008 at 2:10 am

Not sure I buy that.

145. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220746 by BillySands on July 29, 2008 at 1:48 am

I found the cracker/Jesus thing tasteless.

.

Try a dash of cumin then

146. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220738 by BillySands on July 29, 2008 at 1:38 am

About time too!

However, they know where their bread (before transubstantiation) comes from.

Wonder if catholic school boys play the milky cracker game?

147. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #220222 by BillySands on July 28, 2008 at 8:22 am

But the real issue here is the faith of the atheist. They have a precommitment to philosophical naturalism, so they rule out ahead of time any evidence which runs counter to their faith-based commitment to materialism.

And everyone then has a precommitment to a-jellybeanism. Just inventing a philosophy does not make it real. I would suggest that most atheists are not precommitted to anything. They just see suernaturalism as a bag of shit - just like jellybeanism. All it needs is evidence!

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220103 by BillySands on July 28, 2008 at 5:03 am

Epeeist,

You should see the ken ham groupies when he is in town. It's like a plague of YEC zombies. They all use arguments from authority and accept what they are told. Isn't that right Wee flea?

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220096 by BillySands on July 28, 2008 at 4:51 am

So, as they would not have survived the dilution of the seas and the submersion, the only possibility is that entire reefs must have been lifted into the Ark. Considering the size of the Barrier Reef, that boat must have been flipping huge.

No doubt, they seem to have some how escaped the the sediments that created all of earths sedimentary rocks during the flood. Mind you, near me there are fossil trees growing on top of coral reefs http://www.scottishgeology.com/outandabout/classic_sites/locations/fossil_grove.html how does that happen then?

Anyone who has tried to keep corals will know just how sensitive they are to minute changes in their environment, and we are asked to accept that they survives osmotic shock and the killing of their symbiotic algae in the darkness.

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220088 by BillySands on July 28, 2008 at 4:39 am

Quetz, there would also be the pressure problem too. The oldest tree in the world seems to have survived the flood http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/search?q=bristlecone

They can be found up to 11 000 ft. Let's round off Everest to 29 000 ft (the minimum hieght of the flood), the water then at the upper limit is 18 000 ft deep. That's a pressure of 532 atmospheres. Lets take the fortingall yew, which may be upto 5000 years old. That grows at 426 feet. That's a presure of 844 atmospheres