Comments by Goldy

1901. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166073 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 5:53 pm

The laws of nature did not exist until God created them. He is not subject to them. God is eternal. God is not limited by time. At the creation event, space, time, matter, and energy were created. God created time, He caused time. He is outside of time.

God does not exist.

1902. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165970 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Something from nothing, life from no life - Remmers, you don't believe this?
Where does that leave Genesis? Or how did spirits tell you to translate that?

1903. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165967 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Remmers, what do you think of this tree?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7353357.stm

1904. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165964 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I said that an unbeliever cannot properly interpret Scripture without guidance from the Holy Spirit. You have not only proven that, you have also proven that you have a problem with reading comprehension as well.

guess you've been swigging deep from the spirit bottle too, eh? Affected your comprehension.
Man, how can people like you exist in this world? I pity you. Shame your parents never thought about birth control - but it's too late now.
I take it you're American.

1905. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165954 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Sure you do, the big bang (something from nothing), life from no life,

You don't believe that?

1906. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165895 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

I'll give you a pass since your ignorance of what the Bible teaches is so blatant. I do have to admit that it is humorous to watch an atheist get all befuddled by their lack of Biblical knowledge though.

Sad that an athiest can know your "holy scripture" better than you.
Sadder you give us incomplete quotations from Paul, a spin doctor who never met Jesus and wasn't particularly liked by James, as recent research seems to suggest.
Bloody Paulites, always lower the IQ levels ;-)

1907. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #165674 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 2:58 am

No one I know has even heard of this movie. If it comes to NZ, I dare say those that went to see Mr Hinn might be stupid enough to pay money to see it. No one else will.
I'm with Lucas - too much typing has been done on this site about it. The Mecca Meridien Time story is much more interesting.
Babrock, love your comments but I'm with Steve. Just say "the". Please!
Let's let this movie bomb quietly. Why give any credibility to it by even discussing it?

1908. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165671 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 2:39 am

Ummm, why don't they just go to the pub or something? Athiest church? What a silly concept!

1909. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165630 by Goldy on April 22, 2008 at 12:51 am

Some evolution has served a purpose.

No. No evolution has served any purpose. It's just the environment allowed that avenue to be explored (bad terms - too anthropomorphic...but can't think how else to put it). For every evolutionary progression there are loads of dead ends.
No evolution has ever served any purpose. The only purpose there is is what we can see in the process. Bit like interpretations of abstract paintings...

You have acknowledged that humans have continued to evolve up until the present day.

As animals, we can do nothing but. Part and parcel of adapting to our environment. Let's hope we can adapt to drastic changes, or that god of yours is up the proverbial creek without a paddle :-)
Just remember, there is no purpose - just opportunities. Don't waste them chasing a delusion :-)
Eye hurts - had another scrape this morning to remove more rust. Doubtless I'll have to trawl through another few hundred posts to see where this has gotten to :-) I may check back before bed, but it'll have to be quite the comment to make me reply :-)

Edit - consequence. That's the word I'm looking for. Evolution has no purpose, it is just a consequence :-)

1910. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165596 by Goldy on April 21, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Islamic scholar, Zaghloul al-Najjar, said that the West did not like the scientific proofs that "Mecca was located in the centre of our planet, but nevertheless we will go on our research to establish it as a truth".

this suggests to me that al-Najjar is in the flat Earth camp. Again. truth has a different meaning to fact. IDiots will probably be salivating at the prospect of joining forces with them :-)

1911. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165595 by Goldy on April 21, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Theists, I have found Gr8hands, are like Chinese nationalists (being topical, of course - ALL nationalists are the same). Truth is what they want to believe. Facts are an inconvenience best ignored or rubbished.

1912. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165574 by Goldy on April 21, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Yep, this caused a few laughs at the start of the day (I wake up to the BBC). I heard this and knew the world was an OK place to live :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm

1913. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165517 by Goldy on April 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I grew up in a God-loving culture that doesn't believe in killing innocent babies or euthanizing the worthless. We don't start wars, we finish em'!In fact, my predecessers enjoyed killing Darwin-loving Nazis wherever they could find them. My Family considers it an Honor to give your life for others. And if God asks me (once again) to defend the innocent against the likes of you - I'll be seeing you soon....

But in Wikipedia, one sees that...

Eugenics and the United States, 1890sâ€"1945
One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenics (before it was labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell. In 1881 Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and, through noting that congenitally deaf parents were more likely to produce deaf children, tentatively suggested that couples where both were deaf should not marry, in his lecture Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race presented to the National Academy of Sciences on 13 November 1883.[28] However, it was his hobby of livestock breeding which led to his appointment to biologist David Starr Jordan's Committee on Eugenics, under the auspices of the American Breeders Association. The committee unequivocally extended the principle to man.[29] Like many other early eugenicists, Bell proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics, and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.[citation needed]

Eugenics was supported by Woodrow Wilson, and, in 1907, helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals.[30] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[31] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[32]

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. In 1898 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910 while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.[33]

During the 20th century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized.[citation needed] All in all, 60,000 Americans suffered from sterilization.[34]

In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.)[35] Though their methodology and research methods are now understood as highly flawed, at the time this was seen as legitimate scientific research.[36] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[37]

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[38] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.[34]

A pedigree chart from The Kallikak Family meant to show how one illicit tryst could lead to an entire generation of imbeciles.The idea of "genius" and "talent" is also considered by William Graham Sumner, a founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association). He maintained that if the government did not meddle with the social policy of laissez-faire, a class of genius would rise to the top of the system of social stratification, followed by a class of talent. Most of the rest of society would fit into the class of mediocrity. Those who were considered to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) had a negative effect on social progress by draining off necessary resources. They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society ("Folkways", 1907).

Anthropometry demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics conference.Eugenics is today often associated with racism and both W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey supported eugenics or ideas resembling eugenics as a way to reduce African American suffering and improve stature.[citation needed]. However, methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this law in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock"[citation needed] from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit"[citation needed] individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers[39]. The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race- mixing.[40] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[41]

Various authors, notably Stephen Jay Gould, have repeatedly asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics.[citation needed] During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[citation needed] It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[42] However, several people, in particular Franz Samelson, Mark Snyderman and Richard Herrnstein, have argued, based on their examination of the records of the congressional debates over immigration policy, Congress gave virtually no consideration to these factors. According to these authors, the restrictions were motivated primarily by a desire to maintain the country's cultural integrity against a heavy influx of foreigners.[43] This interpretation is not, however, accepted by most historians of eugenics.

Some who disagree with the idea of eugenics in general contend that eugenics legislation still had benefits. Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood of America) found it a useful tool to urge the legalization of contraception. In its time eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the death camps of World War II, the idea that eugenics could lead to genocide was not taken seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Have you ever read "Bury My Heart in Wounded Knee?" Rather interesting.
Kardy, you'll be please to know I survived the trip home and back :-)
Off to get eye checked again.
Steve, you read this? You'll love it. So would you, Al
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm
Takes one mind off a film no one I spoke to here has heard of :-)

1914. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165027 by Goldy on April 21, 2008 at 12:05 am

Meanwhile, in the Indian subcontinent (not including Pakistan) and in China, men and women rub their hands in glee. After all, big name scientists bring prestige and money. Don't forget, the inventions and discoveries stay in their country. Yes, they love religion - it's sapping the progression of the one country that stands in their way....

1915. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164932 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 9:18 pm

I'll dig one out and PM it over.
Got to do the fundy god-bod number 10 right now and make a move homeward. If you don't hear from me tomorrow (my time) it's because I've had an accident. Or I've gone to bed with typical male pain reaction (you know, whimpers and general patheticness...)
G'nite - and remember, always wear PPE (personal protective equipment)!

1916. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164929 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 9:12 pm

RD.net gets some traffic, eh? How many people do you suppose have read my deranged rantings?

Loads, mate, loads!
I'm restoring a Triumph TR6 - well, getting it back on the road. The proper resto project is the Alfa Giulia Super. That's a long term project :-) Also finishing off a Russian motorcycle and got a couple of CZs I want to do up for commuting.
Edit - but that's just in this universe. No idea what I have in the alternate one ;-)

1917. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164924 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Shite. Sorry to hear it. FWIW, I understand that eyes are remarkably robust organs.

Getting used to it ;-) Had my other eye scraped last year!

1918. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164922 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Nip over to the McGrath thread and leave a comment :-)

1919. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164919 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Did you get LASIK Goldy?

No, a slightly modified syringe needle and a miniature dremel-like tool. Got a speck of metal in my eye. They also wanted to check inside - that's where the lack of focus comes in as they dilated my pupils.

I don't buy that other universes are created by this process

Why created? Maybe they always were. By coming back and tinkering, I don't think your god created anything - just carried on in that specific universe as he was always destined to.

1920. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164914 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 pm

If anyone else harbors the same question it is because of the weak grandfather paradox... Anytime you change the past, however trivially, you will change the future. You don't need to kill your granddad to affect your future self, so by definition 'you' cease to exist in the new, updated universe, even though a being much like you may take your place.

Still trying to find the BBC radio program about this. While you may change the future in your universe, there is a chance that you (pre-change) exist in another universe. Parallel universes, I think they mentioned.
Something like what was mentioned in the Back to the Future movies :-)

1921. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164908 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Does it bother you, Goldy.

Slightly, yes. If you prefer to capitalise him, carry on. Don't mind me :-)

1922. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164907 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Because He recreates Himself. The old one, the first one, no longer exists. A new one comes about with similar capabilities, but perhaps different attributes.

Exactly - that god no longer exists. Never had existed, really. Each god that is created by the machinations of time tinkering is a brand new god. Of course, all over the place there are other universes coming into existance (always having existed?) where that other god exists. However, I don't think this god can fiddle with physics enough to join up with the other gods.
You didn't get this theory after watching 12 Monkeys, did you? (12 monkeys? Or was it 7. I forget.)
Hope eyes get better soon - will be having to face warp factor 9 driving to get home...

1923. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164899 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Ah well, no warp drive this year.

Come to Auckland. Rush hour traffic over the bridge would dispel that little myth!

1924. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164895 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Every time that God goes back He ceases to exist, at least in His prior form

Ummm....if he ceases to exist (in any form) how can he do the following?

God didn't stop the first time... he has to optimize it.

Each time would be a first time, even for God (who, by the way, surely doesn't need to be called "He" with the capital. After all, he is not as godlike as all that, is he? As you said yourself "He can't go from protoplasm to God in two years" - a god surely can do that if he is a god of worthy note.)

A better question is to focus on the first time, and what came before it.

Just been to the eye clinic, so focusing is a bit hard. Forgive an spelling mistakes! I'd have thought my Jesus question could do with some focusing too...
Anyway, what does it matter what came the first time? After a time fiddle, it would never have existed. Each time is a first time. Nothing came before it - it never existed.
Hell, can't see anything! Bloody car restorations! Should pick a better hobby...

1925. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164837 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Still not sure how this works. If God does a whoopsy and ceases to exist, how can he come back and correct the mistake?

But the good news is, that once it happens, an arbitrarily powerful and clever God will be able to tune it to make His existence arrive sooner and sooner after t=0... even with the Adversary playing his own game.

1926. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164827 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Widenerd - argumentum ad stalinum/hitlerum doesn't further your point any. Go and read a bit before putting your foot delicately in your mouth.

What perplexes me beyond measure is why he is so angry with religion.

What perplexes me is why the religious are so angry with athiests...

1927. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164825 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Also long before the Christian religion was invented Neanderthals were caring fore each other...

And before that, H. erectus http://home.entouch.net/dmd/compass.htm

1928. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164765 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 4:59 pm

But the good news is, that once it happens, an arbitrarily powerful and clever God will be able to tune it to make His existence arrive sooner and sooner after t=0... even with the Adversary playing his own game.

No Goldy. Jesus is patient. There is a dependency missing. It involves the discussion of the secular apocalypse...

I dare say at the timescale you are talking about (which may or may not happen becasue of some secular apocalypse....though if God has spoken to you, I think we're safe, if only in your mind) a butterfly's wing beat will alter everything. Really, God cannot touch anything, at any time. Or he'll not be the God he is now. Dare he take that chance?
Adversary - waht? Aother god? Damn, getting crowded! See what happens when you fuck with the settings ;-)
I've started the apocalypse. Doesn't happen. Your god says so. If there is an apocalypse, he'd not be speaking to you.
Jesus? Or do you follow Paul?

1929. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #164760 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 4:54 pm

One thing I know: Jesus Christ changed me, gave me the ability to love, rescued me from addiction that would have killed.

I think Hermann Goering also overcame addiction. Don't think he used Jesus as an excuse. My father gave up ciggies in the 70s - he's very athiestic.
You change yourself. Jesus was your mental crutch, you don't need him anymore.
Spirits, souls? Belongs to Chinese superstition.

1930. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164755 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Kardy, is the following your apocalypse?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

1931. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164747 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

This physical universe. I find the concept of the multiverse to be more unsettling than sacrificing causality.

Then it's in your god's interest not to muck about with the settings now, is it?

In the mean time, perhaps you'd like to take a crack at the secular apocalypse. Chimeras, gray goo, nuclear holocaust, global warming, the so-called "singularity" (artificial intelligence)... do you think we'll make it to the next century, Goldy?

If your god is from this universe and he spoke to you from a future derived from this present, why should either of us worry? :-) Anyway, given I'll be 133 at the turn of the next century and I believe you'll be near enough the same age, no, neither of us will be there to see it. Our children might, but it is doubtful. Our grandchildren will - assuming we have grandchildren.
I hear the sound of crashing crockery - Jesus answer now, perchance?

1932. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164729 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Oh, and my question regarding Jesus - you have never answered it...

1933. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164728 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm

That's ok, Goldy. I wouldn't want to derail your weekly regimen of lsd and habenero enemas.

You didn't apologise for being late this time, Goldy. What gives? I can see we'll need to work up a fresh guilt trip.

I hope you managed to sneak a quaff of communion juice since last we talked.

Ever since that nasty effect of TFMPP in me, I steer clear of anything other than cannabinoids :-) And enemas...piles you know...rather painful.
Still, if you want habaneros, let me know. they grow well - take an age to germinate, but they don't die in the cold like the other wimpy chilies.
To apologise once is polite, twice is to state your case, three times is tiresome :-)
Not wine, but beer. And mead - homemade stuff. Got a litre of manuka honey waiting at home for processing. Just need to get the champagne yeast...
So, which universe does your god speak to you from?

1934. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164726 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I am a christian, I believe in God and that the Bible is a representation of absolute truth. I choose to be so not because I was spoonfed these ideals, but because at some point in the past I made a careful decision based on independent observations. To be dismissed as "weak-minded" or "stupid" for holding to heart a set of absolute principles, I find quite amusing, given my own background and contributions to genetics and oncology, as well as the courage to go against the grain of societal pressure. Many commenting on this issue are not philosophically inclined. Most cannot even challenge the precepts they've internalised since early childhood through a liberalist education and media. The reactions below almost mimic coping patterns, and are quite predictable; seven or eight years or so back I would probably have done the same.

Jim, London, UK

Be interesting to have him come here....

1935. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164718 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I can't help wondering how much of this antipathy towards religion (totally justified, I think) is in reaction to the growth of Islam in Britain due to immigration?

Given the Polish Catholics haven't had the same effect, I'd guess no. Maybe as a reaction to what Islam is asking for, yes. You have to admit, it has been a bit forceful...
Anyway, I think religion as a social evil does have reasons outside of what we think. Conflict, for example...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?ei=5087&em=&en=61c2c7872234ab0a&ex=1204779600&pagewanted=all
However, sometimes religion is on the ascendant because it steps in...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?ei=5087&em=&en=61c2c7872234ab0a&ex=1204779600&pagewanted=all

1936. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164712 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Methinks he has seen the episode when Homer eats hot pepper sauce so hot that induces peyote like effects.

Snigger, chortle :-D
If he wants, I do have some chilies growing in my garden that can induce similar effects...
;-)

1937. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164702 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 2:50 pm

What karda is after is an admission that "evolution" can be for a purpose. If he gets that, he will attempt to say we have agreed that "evolution" as we have seen it could have been purposeful

If it had a purpose, i can't see why there is a need for mass extinctions. And if it is directed by his god, who is our descendent, then he has to tell us why there is meddling now by said god because said god exists in the future as a result of what happens now. Unless said god wants an existance in an alternative universe/future, it is pointless doing anything now. Methinks Kardy hasn't seen that Simpsons episode where Homer makes a time machine....

1938. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164297 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 2:56 am

I'll do just these three or four for you because like I said, the problem is that you are unsaved and cannot have an understanding of the Bible. The error is with your understanding

Billy, he's sitting there wanking over our post death torture. As I recall, that is also a sin - sin of pride or something similar. He's going to be next to us in hell, if memory serves. That'll be a heck of pisser - getting fucked by the Devil (who, if he's not a god, I really don't get!) AND having smart alecs like us telling him "I told you so" for all eternity :-D

1939. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164291 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 2:34 am

I'll do just these three or four for you because like I said, the problem is that you are unsaved and cannot have an understanding of the Bible. The error is with your understanding

Or your understanding, Remnant. Man, you are so far behind humanity, I'll be guessing you're confused. It's people like you that'll make sure the rest of us have to learn Mandarin or Hindi. But then, I guess you don't really care. You just don't see the world as it is, do you.
Why am I wasting my time typing this. You're a lost cause. Pointlessly stupid and proud of it.

Edit - Pacman, how do you like your faith brother? In fact, all you other faithful - how proud are you of your brother in Christ? Does he make you swell in your breast and think "Yeah, this is the true religion!".
Really, what are your thoughts?

1940. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164288 by Goldy on April 20, 2008 at 2:31 am

Tsk, tsk ad hominem attacks, I thought you were all intellectualls that could back up your arguments.

We are and we do, but they seem to be lost on brain dead IDiots. Sad, really - scientists have tried to take living to what they thought it would be in the 50s - you know, all futuristic and all - but the religious want us firmly in the past and it seems they want us further and further into the past. At my last check we should be in the Dark Ages again.
How do you feel about this, Paccers? What is your personal feeling about this regression we are meant to be taking? Why, as a Christian, do YOU think we should be at least a few hundred years behind where we are now?

1941. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164248 by Goldy on April 19, 2008 at 8:45 pm

My suggestion for you is to repent and come to Christ. I will be praying for you.

Why don't you turn to athiesm first?
Typical, a follower of a delusion offers to do fuck all in return for us.
Sod prayers, they have been scientifically proven to do absolutely nothing.
Give cold hard cash instead. Or contribute to the RD fund (details above) and see if that god-given money (small g not a typo - there's so many gods to chose from!) makes a difference :-)
Otherwise just get a life.

1942. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164106 by Goldy on April 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Regarding 2584. Comment #163900 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

Pacman, do you have any references that are younger than 20 years ago? As I recall when at uni doing biochemistry, my Stryer (the text book I bought at the start of my course) was out of date by the time I did my finals.
Sorry if all this has been rehashed, catching up and venting my spleen.
If his mind opened a bit, I dare say we'd all be sucked into the black hole therein!

1943. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164103 by Goldy on April 19, 2008 at 2:27 pm

God is. He wasn't created. Simple as that.

If God wasn't created, why does life have to be? Why do the laws of physics have to be?
If you can grasp the concept of one in your head, the others should be easy peasy.
Anyway, what is your evidence that God was not created?

1944. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163791 by Goldy on April 19, 2008 at 3:15 am

I now understand why Darwinist don't agree with ID, atheist don't believe in God. That's simple enough to explain. To bad as a scientist you can't explain how life started. That would give a little validity to your 'Theory', that is, it is only a theory and NOT a proven fact. I do have one question though, if human DNA is really ape DNA that has evolved, how come there are still apes on the planet?

Some more evolved than others, eh? Wonder if he fell on his head when someone kicked his tree...

1945. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163788 by Goldy on April 19, 2008 at 3:07 am

And if we came from dust, why do I still have to go round with a bloody vacuum cleaner twice a week?

Sounds like you're falling apart, Paula ;-) Coat self in varnish, works wonders... (ducks to avoid missile)

a more important question for you is this: if women came from a man's rib, then why do they still have skeletons?

And where did that Y chromosome go?

1946. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163750 by Goldy on April 19, 2008 at 1:17 am

Late again, sorry...

Evolution has never been observed and will never be observed.

Errr, yes it has and it forevermore will be. Cretin.
Creationism, on the other hand, really has never been observed :-) Alfter all, has anyone here got ANY account of a fully formed species just appearing. Not by evolution, but just by...errr, "POOF! There it is!" sort of appearing.
Fucking idiots.

1947. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163614 by Goldy on April 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Odd how "Intelligent Design" attracts the least intelligent, eh? ;-)

1948. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163613 by Goldy on April 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm

...you atheist/Darwinians...

I'm an athiest/Wallacian, actually.

1949. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163612 by Goldy on April 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm

But in a grand sense, an atheist must think they exist for no real reason, which I find very disheartening.

Sorry i'm late - time differences and all that. Skimming throught the posts and came across this nugget.
What utter bollocks! Theist must think they exist purely for the whim of a god, which I find very disheartening.
What on earth do you qualify as "meaning"? Why is there this need for a god to fill some hole? And what qualifies, say, an Abrahamite for an afterlife? Being in the right sect? Remember, Muslims don't go to Heaven, neither do Jews, netiher do all the other sects. This, I believe, applies across the board, so Heaven going Muslims feel the same way about other Abrahamatic sects.

1950. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163002 by Goldy on April 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Maybe detractors and IDiots care to read teh damn thing for themselves before thinking (not, I admit, something they partake of too much)
Indeed, there is no excuse not to know everything
http://darwin-online.org.uk/