Comments by Quetzalcoatl

Comment #168051 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Anna-

I find it hard to believe that you don't find Duffman sexy. Even if you are heterosexual. ;-)

I am very much het, but somehow I have resisted Duffman's charms. I will however say that I find him amusing, and have been known to do impressions (to myself) of his sayings. My favourite would be:

"Duffman's pension fund has been mismanaged! Oh yeah!"

1802. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168031 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Annabanana-

thank you, I am aware of the definition of sexy. And I saw your comment. I was merely speaking for myself.

1803. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168020 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:24 pm

gr8hands-

Quetzalcoatl, you're ignoring Duffman's Power of being Super-Hot!

I have seen no evidence for the existence of this power. Perhaps Duffman has tricked you using his Rose-Tinted Glasses ability!

1804. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168005 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:17 pm

TheTruthID-

Boy you are in dreamland

Actually, I'm not. I have better things to dream about than Internet debates. Nubile young women feature heavily.

To truly belive that there are only a few and they are not highly respected tells me either you are too ignorant and never read or thats what you want to belive for your sanity

Nice attempt to avoid the issue. Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, and you know it. And because I disagree with you does not make me insane or ignorant.

1805. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168000 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Al-

Duffman is clearly the man when it comes to super heroes. He is a beer themed hero, can't top it

Oh yeah, the ability to get drunk and fall down a lot. Impressive. Lets not forget his Super Slur ability and his Hangover-inducing eye-beams. What a hero.

1806. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167985 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm

TheTruthID-

If your answer is, there are only a few and they are not highly regarded, I must admit you would be avoiding the question.

So by disagreeing with you, we would be avoiding the question? Interesting.

The answer is simple. Religion. If there was no religious stake in proving Creationism and a young earth,there would be no "controversy".

And yes, there are only a few, and they are not highly respected. Michael Behe would be a good example of this.

1807. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167971 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Remnant-

Now a question for you. If you have children, do you read the Bible to them and discuss it with them?

I don't have kids, Remnant (I am 24). Even if I did, I would not sit and read the Bible to them, no more than I would the Qu'ran or the Torah.

However, that is not to say that I will raise them as atheists. I will allow them to make up their own minds.

just as should be done in the public indoctrination centers

Are you talking about schools here? This sounds like an interesting attitude. Do your children refer to teachers as "change agents"?

1808. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167831 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 11:12 am

MaxD-

are the answers not at the bottom of comment 1043?

1809. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167830 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 11:10 am

Remnant-

I notice you didn't answer my question in 3774. Don't worry. It'll be waiting for you when you get back...

1810. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167816 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 10:58 am

MaxD-

he has responded!

1811. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167814 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 10:57 am

Remnant-

I am against brainwashing children with theories and and speculations and intentionally withholding information that does not support those theories and facts. I am against indoctrinating children by showing them only one side and censoring free and open discussion of opposing thought.

So by this logic, when children are taught in Sunday school about Jesus, they should also be taught that not everyone agrees with this. Where they are taught about Creationism and a Young Earth, they should also be told about evolution, and the Big Bang. After all, this will promote discussion and avoid censorship of opposing thought.

If I am wrong, tell me why.

1812. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167717 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 9:29 am

If you want to deny Christ, that is your free will choice but to try and destroy the faith of innocent children is evil. The Lord spoke about that and I am sure He will will have much more to say about that at judgment day.

See, I was right.

EDIT- Gr8hands- fix your italics.

1813. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167709 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 9:24 am

Remnant-

Thank you for you rubbish but I'll pass.

I doubt it. I predict you'll keep going for a while yet.

1814. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167701 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 9:17 am

If anyone is trying to restrict choice, it is atheists like you that try to destroy the faith of other people's children with satan's lies that you believe. You and Eve have a lot in common

That's why Steve looks so familiar!

Remnant, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You talk rubbish.

1815. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167626 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 8:13 am

5keptical-

it's more about having somewhere where we can talk about issues without being interrupted by and having to respond to Creationists. That's not to say that there's an unwillingness to engage with critics. I think in one of his earlier comments Steve Zara said something about the topics that the space might be used for.

1816. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167621 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 8:09 am

Remnant-

Rather than worrying about others state of salvation, I suggest you focus on yours by seeking the truth

You aren't being asked these questions because the posters are concerned about "others state of salvation". You're being asked them to establish what your views are, and to highlight the inconsistencies in said views.

Also:

The question I have for you is why are you concerned about others when you have heard the Gospel and, I assume, have not placed your faith in Christ?

You don't need to be Christian to be concerned about others.

1817. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167582 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 7:20 am

seeker_of_truth-

I hope you don't mind me adding a question to the two that Epeeist put to you. This question is contingent on your answer to Epeeist's, so feel free to ignore it if it is irrelevant.

If you are a supporter of Intelligent Design, can I ask what you believe are the scientifically testable predictions of ID?

1818. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167572 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 7:09 am

Al-

thanks. I thought it would be beneficial for my worshippers to get a closer look at the face of a true god. :)

I agree, it is frustrating. The problem is people often focus on the insults and ignore the context behind it.

1819. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167570 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 7:06 am

lol mahmood-

another thing to consider is that most of the insults only occur after we start getting threatened with eternal damnation, and accused of being wilfully ignorant.

1820. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167544 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 6:45 am

Maybe some posters are too quick to step in with the insults, I don't know. But behind a lot of the insults is frustration with trolls who show no interest in debate, instead flinging about ad-homs and Bible quotes like they have any relevance to what is being discussed. I think that needs to be kept in mind.

1821. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167532 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 6:28 am

Steve-

What I meant was no understanding of science.

Ah, okay. Your post had me worried for a moment!

1822. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167511 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 5:47 am

Steve-

I am intrigued as to why people who aren't scientists feel they have any kind of ability to comment on scientific subjects

What do you mean by this? I have no scientific background, but I talk about scientific issues, most recently the post to Kardashovel on wormholes. Is there a distinction?

1823. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167461 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 4:28 am

One can set up a restricted blog on blogger in seconds. I am not saying that is the right approach, but my impression is that the fora are too heavyweight. I find it difficult to find my way around them and search for things.

I tend to agree. It's harder to navigate around the forums, whereas here you can very easily keep track of who has commented where and what the newest threads are.

Using Blogger it's easy enough to set up a restricted-access blog as Steve said, and it can also be configured to allow multiple posters, so anyone would be able to start a topic if they so wished.

I do think Blogger is a better option than the forums, if only because it's easier to use, and more accessible. Just my opinion, though.

1824. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167429 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 3:12 am

Geoff-

to answer your questions:

Yes.
No.
No.

And thanks!

1825. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167427 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 3:07 am

Paula-

if that were to happen it might be better to have several people, rather than just one, since that could be a bit of a workload. Perhaps those running it could be drawn from different time zones as well.

1826. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167422 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 2:57 am

Varghese2go-

who are you talking to?

1827. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167418 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 2:39 am

Roland-

perhaps I could have used a better word than literate. He can at least string sentences together and knows how to use a spell-checker, even if his assertions are just as nutty as Clearmind's.

1828. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167413 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 2:31 am

Your icon is getting truly scary, by the way

Excellent. That's what I was going for!

1829. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167408 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 2:25 am

I've got to say that I do think it is a waste of time responding to Remnant. When confronted with his errors, he inevitably resorts to Scripture and insults. Unless he shows willingness to engage in proper debate, he should be treated as a slightly more literate Clearmind, and ignored.

1830. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167385 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:27 am

Perhaps we could set up a private blog? Should not be too difficult to arrange. Invitations put out on fleabytes

Sounds like a good idea. If I'm welcome then I'd be interested.

1831. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167368 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2008 at 1:05 am

TheTruth ID-

Looks like ID wins again, which it usually does in debates. This is because evolution THEORY is so idiotic, the only defense an evolutionist has is to make personal attacks.

I haven't read all of the thread, so apologies if you've already been asked this, but I have a question.

What are the scientifically testable predictions of Intelligent Design Theory?

1832. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166966 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Al-rawandi-

I have a guess. A couple of guys were smoking a little too much of a special weed, and got confused. The rest of them are just superstitious twits.

1833. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166957 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Remnant-

just give it up.

1834. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166952 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Steve-

I see that you are no longer a velvet worm. Congratulations on your rapid macroevolution.

Off topic- I've left a rambling comment on your blog post.

1835. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166488 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 9:15 am

Remnant-

Get back to me when the transition is complete.
hahahaha

Don't make me use the picture again.

1836. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166465 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 9:01 am

Elles-

good post. Your modesty is quite inspiring, also. :)

1837. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166456 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:56 am

In response to the brilliant reasoning exhibited by Remnant, as typified by his masterful use of quotes from Revelation, I feel that I am duty-bound to express my opinion of his contributions to this site in pictorial format. I hope that this will suitably illustrate my feelings in this matter.

Troll

1838. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166433 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:43 am

Steve-

what has happened to your avatar!!!

1839. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166429 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:40 am

Remnant-

by constantly using the word THEORY in BLOCK CAPITALS, it is CLEAR that you have no understanding what theory means in the context of science.

Oh, and when you've answered the unicorn question, would you mind giving us your opinion on the location of the storehouses of hail that the Bible mentions?

1840. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166398 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

dj2baduk-

my final word on this before it disappears to Steve's blog :)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but there are many who forecast hurricanes instead of storms.

Al-rawandi-

do you mean the temperature or the intelligence of the world's population? :)

1841. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166392 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:04 am

Fides-

I don't think there's any bashing going on, just disagreement. You'll see from many of the posts that many have expressed the fact that they respect him.

1842. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166386 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:02 am

Steve-

perhaps that would be a good idea, if you have the time. I've got TKD tonight, so won't have the time to write a proper post until tomorrow at the earliest.

1843. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166383 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 7:57 am

Steve-

This is interesting, but perhaps best discussed elsewhere...

your blog or mine? :)

If you're serious, we could discuss it on mine.

1844. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166371 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 am

Steve-

Oh dear. Perhaps my first ever major disagreement with Quetz :)

Uh oh. Better be careful here, or the fundies might start to think this is a site where people actually discuss things rather than worship Dawkins :(

Anway. "An Inconvenient Truth" included so much ridiculous hype that scientists in the IPCC were distancing themselves from it. An obvious example is the bit about those poor old polar bears.

Another factor to consider is that when one of these falsehoods is shown to be such, it reflects badly on the message as a whole.

Plus Al Gore's whole carbon-offsetting business interests strike me as a mite dodgy.

1845. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166361 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 7:37 am

Everyone-

fot the future: if someone talks about the Flood, first ask them to define what a "kind" is. If time of death doesn't immediately ensue, it will be amusing to watch them flop around struggling to answer.

1846. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166353 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 7:30 am

Lord Lawson is a good example of the dangers of those who aren't experts in a subject making public comments about it

It would be nice if we could use this logic to get Al Gore to shut the hell up.

1847. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166329 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 6:32 am

Roland F-

Steve means the physicist Frank Tipler's explanation, not Robert Winston.

1848. Gods and earthlings

Comment #166277 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 4:37 am

Coolwainy-

In order to disprove God you would need to know everything, so there's no way Dawkins could be almost certain that God doesn't exist.

That's why he said ALMOST certain.

Surely in order for something to be created, its creator must be more probable than the thing it created otherwise it could not have created it in the first place?

Which leaves us with a complex God, raising the question of where such a complex being came from. Saying God has always existed isn't an answer, neither is saying God is actually simple, since that goes against your argument.

1849. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166254 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 3:51 am

Irate-

God's last words to Noah, immortalised on film by S. Spielberg, were: 'You're gonna need a bigger boat.'

Noah: "But Lord, I built it to your exact specifications!"
God: "Silence! I am the Lord".
Noah: "Yes, I know, but what you said was....aargh!"
(Gets eaten by a Ceratosaurus).
God: "That'll show him".

1850. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166249 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 3:46 am

Steve-