Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


101. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198435 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Comment #198388 by Faithhead

Funny, now they are writing fleas about fleas!
To keep the literary basis of the whole flea thing:

"The Vermin only teaze and pinch Their Foes superior by an Inch.
So Nat'ralists observe, a Flea Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."

From one of Swift's poems.

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198269 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Comment #198261 by Frankus1122

Anecdotal often leads to science of worth.
'There seems to be something here. Let's investigate.'
As Isaac Asimov said, much of science starts with the phrase "That's funny."

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198251 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Comment #198234 by Steve Zara


If they want to talk to me about science, I first want them to agree to use the rules of science. If one of their axioms is "the bible is true in these matters", I see no point engaging on matters of evidence with them myself. What I have been trying to do instead is address the issue of why they feel in a position to challenge the scientific establishment.
Firstly, I absolutely agree that we shouldn't be put on the back foot. It should be made plain to the likes of RtG and txpiper that they must present positive evidence if they want their position to have any credibility. Criticising evolution does not validate creationism.

If they are unable or unwilling to do this, then your method comes into play. You have concentrated on getting them to say why they think they are right. An alternative might be to get them to say why Darwin, Einstein etc. are wrong.

As usual, no evasions, red herrings, attempts to shift the burden should be left unpunished.

And impose some kind of cut-off. Dr. Benway's three strikes is a good, but I wonder whether a time element would also be useful?

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198013 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 3:51 am

Comment #198005 by Jethro

Tolkein would disagree with you. You're missing the significance of 'myth', which Lord of the Rings isn't.
Have you come across the idea of a "myth index"? Tolkien actually mentions it in one of his essays ("On Fairy Stories" I think).

LoTR might not be mythology per se, but it uses a very large number of entries in most myth indexes.

And while Steve might wants to compare the existence of your god to Gandalf (who actually appears in the Havamal), I want to do the comparison with Vainamoinen.

105. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #197940 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 1:26 am

Comment #197937 by ridelo

If simplicity was the criterion in Occam's razor then goddidit would be the best theory ever.
There are other requirements though, like accuracy, testability and falsifiability. Goddidit doesn't meet these.

Plus the fact that you are introducing an incredibly complex entity, which goes against the razor.

106. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197629 by epeeist on June 22, 2008 at 11:57 am

Comment #197589 by Steve Zara


Oh dear the link to "The Delusion Delusion" on his page doesn't work.
Just another web site with appalling accessibility.

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197453 by epeeist on June 22, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #197450 by irate_atheist

A useful use for cretinists? For once, I am stumped.
But switch it around, here is an amusing use for a fiver - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

EDIT: More info here: http://www.pledgebank.com/atheistbus

108. What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'?

Comment #197427 by epeeist on June 22, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #197271 by Brian English

Epeeist, at the time of your confrontation, were you perchance brandishing a foil or sabre?
A crab salad sandwich as far as I remember.

I was extremely polite, just spoke a little louder than normal. There were a few looks of amusement from by passers.

109. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197414 by epeeist on June 22, 2008 at 2:21 am

Comment #197370 by marshall1

Hogwash, God cares so much about saving you from an eternity without him that he sent his son into this terrible world just to come down and get you.
One thing that always amuses me is that people point to the god of one particular set of cattle sacrificing primitives and say that one is true and all others are false.
The points that Atheists make are not unique. Christians (at least me) have already considered most of the points that Atheists hang their faith on, but we believe anyway.
So to certain extent he is right. He has obviously dismissed all other gods as being myths with no evidence to support their existence. Not too much different to the way an atheist would approach things, though an atheist might be more circumspect in not making an absolute dismissal.

But once he gets that far he can't take the next step, namely to conclude that the evidence for Jesus is little different to that for Osiris or Mithras, i.e. little to none. And therefore should probably treat the story of Jesus as just another variant of a resurrected sun god.

110. What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'?

Comment #197268 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #197231 by Border Collie


I DO NOT put up with people asking me "Are you saved?" any longer.
In the small town that I work in (Macclefield in the UK if anyone is interested) I used to be given leaflets by a set of young women wearing long skirts and tiny triangular headscarves proclaiming the "Truth of the Bible".

I got sick of it and one day asked one of them how old she thought the earth was and was there a global flood. She really couldn't defend her position very well and wasn't happy that I was speaking reasonably loudly.

These days they tend to disappear up side alleys when they see me coming. Quite gratifying really.

111. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #197220 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #197205 by Misael


I think Professor Dawkins' terminology is over the top in his "open letter".
"unscrupulous", "wicked", "evil", "deliberate and calculated deception..."
Actually I think he was straight on the money - have a look at http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for the lies and deceptions behind the film.

112. Louisiana's Latest Assault on Darwin

Comment #197189 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #197186 by heafnerj


Folks, I really hate to be the one to say it, but the fact that this non-issue repeatedly comes back is evidence that it's not going away. We've lost this battle, mostly thanks to the dumbing down of public education in this country.
Yes, the likes of the Discovery Institute and the Christian "universities" will keep plugging away trying to undermine your constitution and undermine science and rationality in your country.

But you will only have definitely lost the battle when you decide it isn't worth the effort. You have to keep up the fight using whatever means are open to you. Otherwise your prediction might just come true.

113. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #197185 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 9:56 am

Comment #197181 by Misael

just wondering what became of my comment.
According to the "Other Comments" link this is the only one that you have posted.

It may be that your login timed out if you took a long time to type a comment in. It is best to use a simple editor like Notepad to compose your post. Once you have completed it then you can cut and paste from your editor into the comment posting box.

114. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197157 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 8:54 am

Comment #197141 by ferr0084

We all know the creationists are delusional but the real issue in this case seems to be that knowledge is nationalistic. Just think how messed up we would be if we actually believe some of the insane things that British scientists say?
I know you are joking (you are joking, right?) but look back at some twentieth century figures, like Einstein being opposed in Nazi Germany because he was a proponent of "Jewish Science", and genetics being declared a "bourgeois science" in the Soviet Union.

I see little difference between these and the long term aims of the "Discovery Institute".

115. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197052 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 1:53 am

The New York Times weighs in - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21sat4.html?ref=opinion

116. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197036 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 12:43 am

Comment #197022 by irate_atheist


Edit: Just read this on the Financial Times online a few minutes ago:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afecb14c-3efc-11dd-8fd9-0000779fd2ac.html

There is no room for complacency in dealing with the religious mindset, especially when it is backed up by 'tradition' and a few billion quid. A delusional Prime Minister or two also helps in the progress of this madness.
At the moment they can use the pseudo-entry criterion of adherence to their faith. Given that they are taking state money for these academies they ought to have the same entry criteria as state schools. I suspect that not being able to cherry pick which children they admit might have some effect on their results.

EDIT: While Blair, Brown, Balls and Kelly have screwed this up I am not sure that Cameroon would be any different.

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197031 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 12:35 am

Comment #196920 by alovrin

No I just like revving Al R up, for all the wrong reasons.
It can be fun can't it.

I liked one of his posts in which he was essentially claiming it was "historical inevitability" that "communist" states would fail. He also seems to think that free market capitalism is the final state of development.

Now, in a slightly different form, where have I heard that before?

118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197010 by epeeist on June 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Comment #196992 by Quine

Just for fun, start with this view of the two Keck and Subaru telescopes from Google sat. Then, slowly keep clicking the zoom out button until you can see the whole island chain. (Note: no bathtub ring)
You do realise that it was less that 5000 feet high before the flood don't you?

It was only after the flood that it grew to its present height (must have been all the nutrients from the dead fish that helped it along).

119. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196552 by epeeist on June 20, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #196539 by al-rawandi

Plus the simple fact that Soviet Communism had a shelf life of less than a century and was bound to fail.
Ah, historical inevitability. Now where have I read about that before?

120. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #196437 by epeeist on June 20, 2008 at 12:54 am

Comment #195900 by Quetzalcoatl

Constructive criticism I can take, but vague statements like that aren't very helpful, and they nag at me.
Which is probably his criterion for success.

Or at least partial success, real success is for the person who the derision and jeering is aimed at to fire off at a high adrenaline level. Which he can then use to further his claims.

Been there, done that, saw through it and don't bother any more.

121. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196144 by epeeist on June 19, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #196121 by Galactor

I think you have lost sight of what ID is supposed to be. It has nothing whatsover to do with science; it isn't meant to be. It is an attempt to dress creationism up as science so that it can be presented as such in an attempt to gain it a level of credibility.
And to confirm this have a search for cdesign proponentsists, this is a good starting point - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196082 by epeeist on June 19, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #196068 by Vaal

Summer Solstice tomorrow. Can you bring back dancing around the woods naked please.
I was listening to BBC Radio 4 on a drive back from London today (I hate driving in London). On "From Our Own Correspondent" they had a guy who had been to the British Antarctic base.

Apparently on the day of the winter solstice they do a streak around the base. I wonder what the size of the male appendage is after running about in the nude at -30C?

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195862 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #195855 by irate_atheist



You are Tony Benn and I claim my five pounds!

What rot! You know very well that I'm Spartacus.
Hmm, perhaps you don't recognise the source of my quotation.

It was Harold Wilson talking about Tony Benn "a politician who immatures with age".

124. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195570 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #195490 by al-rawandi


Way to insult the new guy. Geeze, we can't take you anywhere.... You always have to make a scene.
As my mother used to say 'I can only take you somewhere twice, the second time to apologise.'

125. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #195408 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 7:17 am

Comment #195402 by al-rawandi

I really don't like to suggest that people are fundamentally different, but they do often come from fundamentally different environments. In terms of race, there is no scientific data to suggest any biological difference between peoples. In fact genetic variegation can be as great within one race as it could be between races.
I agree that the genetic variegation both within and without races can overlap. However, there are obviously differences between races. Things like sickle cell anaemia and Tay-Sachs are obvious examples.

There is a reasonable amount of research data to show that there are differences between white and black athletes which explain why black athletes perform better at some sports.

None of this should be taken as a value judgment however.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195404 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 7:09 am

Not something I was aware of until recently. I think it may prove to be of help (or possibly not) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problems

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195376 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #195373 by irate_atheist

Philip, I'll be thirty two then. I tend to find I immature with age.
You are Tony Benn and I claim my five pounds!

(That will teach you to compare me to George Galloway)

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195375 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #195367 by Apathy personified

So maybe a new scientific theory will come along that explains everything ToE does, but also irons out any inconsistencies (although i'm not aware of any in ToE atm). Would we still be right in saying ToE is right? (in the same way, can we call newtonian mechanics right - or just a very good low speed approximation)
All theories are provisional, nor can we claim truth for them. Verisimilitude (which is not particularly well defined) is the best we can hope for.

MPhil posted a bit on abductive reasoning a few days past, inference to the best explanation.

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195360 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 am

While I think it was I who actually started the pressure on RtG to provide some evidence for creationism I think Brian's approach was far better than mine.

What is obvious is that the creationists think there are only two options, "evilutionism" and creationism and that discrediting the first automatically validates creationism.

This is obviously untrue. They are contraries not contradictories, one could be true but both could be false.

The creationist position fails on other counts as well. There may well be multiple hypotheses that explain the data rather than the two the creationist has chosen. This is a mixture of a bifurcation error and a personal epistemological standpoint.

If there are multiple hypotheses then each must stand on its own in terms of explanatory power. Use of things like Kuhn's criteria (accuracy, simplicity, broadness of scope, self-consistency and consistency with other theories and fruitfulness) plus the testability and falsifiability requirements will allow us to choose between competing hypotheses. We may run into the problem of under-determination if we end up with multiple theories with equal explanatory power. But again, it is up to the creationist to demonstrate the explanatory power of his hypothesis and show it to be at least as good as the ToE.

130. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195276 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #195229 by clearthinker


The term 'liberal Christian' seems to me an oxymoron. Does this mean a Christian who does not believe the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection etc? In what sense can they be called a Christian. It sounds as though he was converted from religion to atheism. Out of the frying pan into the fire.
It amuses me that the first thing that DAR commits is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195262 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #194876 by Jethro

A number of you guys who have been beating me up when I was at my tea seemed to infer that my attachment of 'uncompassionate' to 'natural selection' indicated misunderstanding on my part.
Jethro - discussion here can be, shall I say "robust".

Stick with it and don't be afraid to be just as forceful with your ideas.

132. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #195259 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:33 am

One thing that I would be interested in knowing about ketch22. He obviously has no problems coming here to proselytise to a bunch of hard nosed atheists.

One wonders what kind of a hospice he works in and, assuming it is not a specifically Christian one, whether he uses the opportunity to proselytise to the patients there.

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195246 by epeeist on June 18, 2008 at 1:12 am

Comment #194862 by Kardashovel


Eepist, you sly dog. PM me if you need some words of encouragement.
Thanks for the offer. However, the local Christian leafleteers now actually shut up shop and disappear up side alleys when they see me walking down the main street looking for somewhere to buy my lunchtime sandwich.

134. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194837 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #194832 by ReceivedTheGift


"Darwin's Black Box" is the scientific masterpiece of mankind. It is turning the Evolution proponent community upside down.
Oh, fuck now he is turning into wooter.

RtG you are a fuckwad of the first water. You have provided nothing in terms of positive proof for your version of the designer. You have been give multiple chances and have blown it each time. As such I am joining others in marking you as a troll.

135. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194822 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #194819 by black wolf

now if fundies had these big worms to come riding to our doorsteps instead of just hot air, that would be impressive.
Oh, fuck. Why did you have to mention worms. Expect clearmind any moment soon.

136. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194820 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #194807 by ReceivedTheGift


Now Behe, he's the new kid on the block. Very impressive. You all should read his work. You might learn the truth. Or is the truth too much to bear?
This would be the Behe who had his arse handed to him on a plate at the Kitzmiller-Dover trial?

Now - are you actually going to provide any evidence for a designer, whether of the Behe type or the cretinist type?

137. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194816 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 am

Comment #194789 by Steve Zara

I believe he already has. Apparently God made him so that he could distinguish between truth and lies:
Comment #193856 by ketch22 on June 16, 2008 at 6:35 am

1. I am not a philosophy "expert" (if there can be such a thing), nor am I a neurology or science wonder. I am a hospice RN who I believe God gave enough intelligence to discern truth from lie.
The humility of these Christians is astounding isn't it.

Do you think we need to worry about his gom jabbar?

138. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194775 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #194764 by al-rawandi


You read the "Koran" in Arabic? It is read right to left of course. Or you read the English right to left? I studied Arabic, and I don't see the value of reading a translation of Arabic right to left. Perhaps you actually read it in Arabic, I could be wrong.
ketch22 has also denied he believes in Thor, but has provided no explanation of why this should be. He has therefore dismissed one god who these days is regarded as mythological, and another god and prophet in whom a significant proportion of the world's population believe.

He has provided no real justification for such dismissal, nor has he provided much in terms of his truth claims in regard to Jesus (our resident historians could presumably tell us whether material written decades after the death of the putative Jesus by members of his cult, none of whom ever met him counts as secondary or tertiary evidence).

It would be interesting if he could explain why he is allowed to dismiss other religions in this way, while atheists are not allowed to dismiss Jesus in the same way.

After all, if we can't prove a negative and hence can't disprove the non-existence of Jesus then he can't disprove the existence of Vishnu, Atum or the angel Moroni.

139. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194705 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:48 am

Comment #194698 by LBraschi

Some research papers you might consider interesting:
Excellent - this is what I was looking for.

140. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194694 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #194676 by irate_atheist

Steve, epeeist - I stand by my comment #194668 on this particular know-nothing sad-sack.
No disagreement from me.

You know, I am beginning to think that we need a secret virtual handshake so that once a theist is pinned then nobody else puts distractors in that said theist can scuttle off after. Brian English's treatment of RtG last night was masterly.

141. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194689 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #194683 by phatbat

Sorry Epeeist
No sweat, consequence of an open site.
do you live in either the Portsmouth or Bristol areas of england
No, I live in a small village on the outskirts of Hyde near Manchester.

I do visit Bristol for the open tournament that takes place there every year - http://www.bristolopen.info/ but that's about the limit of it.

142. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194673 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #194666 by Shmeezers

And objective morality makes complete sense. For example - the statement that everyone has inalienable rights
Please demonstrate how "inalienable rights" is objectively moral. Why is it objectively moral? How do you know it is objectively moral?

143. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194663 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #194653 by phatbat

It could be a case of putting the cart before the horse but it is a very useful tool in getting the theist to try and squirm out of using the very arguments that an atheist could then use against them.
Well, you spoiled my second intention move, but never mind.

If he arbitrarily dismisses the existence of Thor as mythology then he opens himself to exactly the same method of dismissal of Jesus. If he claims that nobody believes in Thor any more then one can change the discussion to Vishnu for example.

If he makes truth claims on Jesus based on the bible then one can make similar truth claims on Thor based on the Havamal or Vishnu in the Rig Veda.

One isn't interested in theology at this point, simply in the existence of the claimed god.

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194618 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 4:38 am

Comment #194611 by Frankus1122

When the giant ice canopy fell and flooded the world where did it create deposits of oil?
Actually txp is was pretty close with his ice canopy. Except he made it too small.

It is obvious when you think about it. All this missing matter in the universe and the stars being further away than 6000 light years.

What is really happening is that stars are surrounded by Dyson spheres made of a special isomer of water. This has great strength and is solid up to at least 200C, most people refer to it as "scrith". It also has just the right properties so that the kinetic energy it gains when falling balances out the latent heat of melting.

It also has exactly the right attenuation to dim the light from stars so that they appear to be more than 6000 light years away. They are all properly placed in the firmament.

So you see, the bible is right, the earth is no more than 6000 years old and there was a global flood.

Poe's Law Alert: The Surgeon General has determined that taking this post seriously can severely affect your mental health.

145. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194613 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #194342 by ketch22


You asked why I don't believe in Thor. You call that an intelligent question and then don't understand why I don't respond. It doesn't deserve a response. Study up on historical theology a little more and then get back to me on why I don't worship Thor.
To change the focus slightly.

Are you claiming that Thor does not exist? If so, what is the basis of your claim?

Comment #194355 by ketch22

Please don't associate me with Clearmind. I don't understand what he is saying and don't need his defense.
I suspect that this is a point of agreement between you and everybody else on the site (excepting clearmind of course). Think of him as background noise and ignore him, that's what the rest of us do.

146. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194586 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #194580 by davelynch

who do you mean by Creationists and other such interventionists if you do not mean Christians?
One minor quibble - the opposite of atheism is theism, not Christianity.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone at this site, never mind for all atheists. However, I don't think there are many here who object to private belief. What is objected to is the assumption by religionists that they have the automatic authority to speak on issues of morality, social organisation and the like without being challenged in the way politicians, sociologists and philosophers are.

This particularly comes to the fore in the terms of science. There has been a significant exploration of what science is and its demarcation from non-science. To put it bluntly, neither creationism or its bastard offshoot "Intelligent Design" is science in any shape or form. Thus it should not be taught in science lessons.

If you want to teach creationism in religious education classes in schools then fine, but not in terms of indoctrination. There are many creation myths out there (personally I like to raise that of Atum when Christians talk about creation, but that is for my own amusement).

Again, I don't think you will find many atheists who object to religious education. You will find a significant number who are against religious indoctrination in schools.

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194552 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 12:24 am

Comment #194492 by ReceivedTheGift


It is very apparent that you do not have the education or intelligence to know what you are talking about. There is no need for you to respond to my questions. Your answers are worthless.
Getting to be quite a pattern with RtG. First he gets at Steve, not realising that Steve has done biology at the post-doc level. Now it would seem that Brian doesn't have the intelligence or qualifications to ask or answer questions. All this from some one who can't spell "esteemed".

I think I will keep quiet about my qualifications for the moment.

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194550 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 12:17 am

Comment #194460 by markg

I'll help RtG: http://about.ralphlauren.com/default.asp?ab=footer_aboutus
Nah,you know it was really Yves St Laurent. You know, that gay French guy.

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194547 by epeeist on June 17, 2008 at 12:06 am

Comment #194314 by phil rimmer

I call Troll now. There hasn't been the slightest hint of dialogue and nobody's brought any drinks to the party....
Agreed, though I think a mixture of "troll" and "offensive" is more apposite.

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194198 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #194186 by ReceivedTheGift

With a display of 5 pieces of art, would not an art novice have the ability to determine which 3 were the works of Picasso? Why? The same creator and or designer.
And he has pressed the reset button again.

Until you actually show some evidence for your creator or designer then why should we pay it any heed.

Get it through your thick skull - If you are claiming that there is a creator or designer then the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence for such an entity. Criticising evolution does not provide evidence for your creator. Even if the theories of quantum mechanics, relativity and evolution are wrong this does not mean that creationism is correct.

Provide some evidence.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next