151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194351 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm

You are a sinner. We all are.

I am not a sinner.
What does that even mean?
You left the realm of reason long ago.
No one here buys into your mythology.
Stop saying really dumb stuff.

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194336 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I just got back from dinner with my family. I mentioned that RtG found out Steve was gay. Dinner continued, more converstaion. I mentioned the new Hulk movie. My children said they saw it. I told them this was a new, different Hulk. My son asked, "Is it the Gay Hulk?"

Now I have images of mild mannered Steve Zara (who has been a bit testy lately) finally snapping. It turns out the new Gay Hulk is fueled by creationist drivel not radiation. The brain muscles bulge and the puny creationists are smashed by Gay Hulk's massive and terrifying blows of logic and reason.

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194301 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Oh dear. You really have to be a wind-up. Someone has to be having a joke.

I was thinking the same thing.
This cannot be serious:

We must fight all evil. Some of you do not realize you are evil while others are intentially evil. I am here to help you open your eyes to reality before it is too late.

It could be wooter. I believe clearwooter was too much to be real. This could be another manifestation of HIM.

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194256 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:54 pm

"touching the void"

Is that the story where the guy could not get a Boney-M song out of his head? Didn't he, in part, refusse to die because he did not want to go out with that song in his head?

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194251 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I always look at Podaar's with a smile at the happy couple

I commented before about how Gregg actually looked like me when he was holding his grandaughter. Now the resemblence is even more pronounced. And we both have good looking wives!

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194238 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm

phatbat:

EDIT for grammer

You might want to edit for spelling too:
"grammar"

sorry :)

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194229 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Dear RtG,
I have been teaching students that oil and natural gas formed millions of years ago. txpiper told me I was wrong to do this. I thought I had all the evidence I needed. The 'experts' all agreed and it seems as though all of the related fields of science corroborated the evidence provided.
I do not want to lead my students astray. I want them to know the truth.
Can you please provide some evidence that proves what you and txp say is true is actually true?
Please note that not all my students are Christians. Some of them are Buddhist and I think there is a student whose parents are Hindu. A number of them profess no belief in any god whatsoever. Do you have evidence that would cross these religious lines (like science does)?
Anxiously waiting your cogent reply.

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194146 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I'm still reading but I came across this:

I approve of the new assertive Steve Zara, pressing creationists to explain why their claim of a higher standard of intelligence and credibility than those working in an area should be accepted.

In the same way one should require such people to present positive evidence as to their claims that, for example, the universe was created. No allowing them to run off into other topics or simply claim that there are "problems" in our explanations. The burden of proof is strongly upon them, they shouldn't be allowed to escape from it.

This is disconcerting. I am worried that txp has not provided evidence for me to pass on to my students.
I also read Steve say this is a serious issue. I agree. I am trying to provide the students in my care with the best education possible. Txp has said that the scientists who claim that oil was formed millions of years ago are working under a 'religious' dogma that won't allow them to interpret evidence in a supernatural way.
However, their ideas seem pretty well thought out and are corroborated by mounds of evidence as well as all other fields of science.

I really need to know if I should change the curriculum for my students. I willing to do this but I need some evidence.
Epeeist's post has made me less hopeful. ;(

159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194125 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Kardashovel,
How are you?
I was just thinking about you and the fact that you haven't been here in a while and poof! You show up.
Amazing coincidence. Didn't your ideas about the universe have something to do with the coincidences that are far too coincidental to be mere coincidences?

I am catching up on this thread. I still have about 4 or 5 pages to get through. I notice txp has a friend. Isn't that special (church lady voice).

I think I left off asking txp if he could provide a time as to when oil deposits were formed and the mechanism by which they were formed.
I have apparently been misinforming my students. I want to provide them with the best available information based on evidence.
I understand txp gave an approximate date for the Flood. So I guess he answered the time part. Now all I need is how and evidence.
Thanks in advance!
I'll need to keep reading to see if I have already been answered (crossing fingers).

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192573 by Frankus1122 on June 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Why isn't there a Center for Advanced Magic Research at my, or any, university?

I think there was a research group looking into paranormal phenomenon at a major university (MIT?). It ran for over 5 years. They shut it down recently because they just had no evidence of any paranormal activity.
I'm sorry I can't reference this. I can't even remember enough to do a good Google search; but I swear it's true. Trust me without evidence.
(I wouldn't).

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192449 by Frankus1122 on June 13, 2008 at 4:57 am

txpiper,
Thanks for your reply!
I am off to school so I only have a quick moment here (busy - gotta run).
I am still a bit confused.
I am not an expert on the development of oil and natural gas so I rely on the real experts - the ones that devote their lives to this kind of research. (I am not an expert on anything really but I can occasionally distinguish between a Picasso and a Braque, if I guess right).
You seem to indicate that I should tell the students that oil can be created by scientists in a lab in less than half an hour under the right conditions.
What do I tell them if they ask about how and when those conditions came about on our planet ?
Do you have some evidence I could provide them on this topic?

I was also a bit confused about this statement from you:

...you could apologize to your students on behalf of the scientific community for the occasions when their religious convictions delay research and development.

Were you talking about Christian scientists who refuse to do stem cell research?

Anxiously awaiting your cogent reply,
Frankus

162. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192353 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 8:40 pm

I will second secondsoprano and say:

Happy 25th birthday Cartomancer :)!

Although it is still June 12 here. You are still 24 where I am but you are not here, you are there where you are 25.

You are awesome and I am off to bed.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192318 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm

2. The moron asshole tyrant in the bible is an idiot savant somehow when it comes to molecular genetic engineering, like that retarded guy who can make beautiful clay animal sculptures.

Maybe he is like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon. Remember how he wasn't very smart at the beginning and then he got supersmart and then went back to retarded Charlie again. Maybe that is what happened to Godlie.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192316 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Philip, Dark, mike, Keith, et al.,

The single fact that Reverend Shayne used the word "monotreme" is enough to convince me that none of this is pointless.

I had to look up the word "ouroborous".
I always called that a Snake-eating-its-tail thingy.

I become a 'laughing boy' of sorts whenever I read the Rev.

165. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192311 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Both Pennock and Miller demonstrate that evolution is not a designer but a scavenger that makes do with jury-rigged solutions and then improves them as opportunities and emergencies present themselves.

So it is like a kludge.

If this is the first of two articles I can't wait for the next.

It seems so clear to me that ToE will come to be understood by all but the most obstinate.
This:

Neo-Darwinian natural selection is endlessly fruitful, enjoying corroboration from an imposing array of disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, systematics, embryology, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, physical anthropology, and ethology. By contrast, intelligent design lacks any naturalistic causal hypotheses and thus enjoys no consilience with any branch of science.

leads me to believe that ID cannot sustain itself.

166. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191994 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 9:14 am

Philip1978 and NFT,
This reminds me of having conversations with my just turned 7 year old son.
I am trying to get him to consistently raise the toilet seat when he pees. He doesn't always do this.
He is coming out of the bathroom as I go in. The seat is down and there is pee on it.
Me: "You peed on the toilet seat again."
Him: "No, I didn't."
Me: "Well, you just went pee. The toilet seat is down, and there is pee on it. So, it seems reasonable to assume that you did, in fact, pee on the toilet seat."
Him: "No, I didn't."
Me: "Yes, you did."
Him: "No, I didn't."
Me: "Yes, you did."

Etc., etc....

I worry about him sometimes; worry that he may turn out religious.

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191933 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 6:18 am

txpiper,
I am beginning to be convinced by your 'arguments.'
However, I now have a problem. I told some students yesterday that it was during the Paleozoic Era that crude oil deposits began to form. That was 200 - 500 million years ago. I told them that heat, bacterial action, and pressure changed plant and animal remains into oil and natural gas.
You can see the problem. How could it have taken so long to create oil when the world is only 6000 years old?
Please help me to explain to these young minds exactly how the oil and natural gas deposits got there.
Is there an explanation or a mechanism that I can outline for them?
They will probably want some 'proof'. If you could provide that as well I would greatly appreciate it.

Anixiously awaiting your cogent reply,

Frankus

168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191793 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I meant, is there one on the web, for free?

There is this:

http://austhink.com/critical/

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191779 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm

fizhburn

Anyone know of a real tutorial on informal (and basic formal) logic out there?

MPhil would be your guy for this info.

I found a book at a yard sale years back called The Elements of Argument. It is a textbook for teaching informal logic and argument. It has examples of various kinds of arguments and logical fallacies. I enjoyed reading it. I can't find it right now but I looked it up. You can get it for fairly cheap used. There may be better ones out there but as I said I enjoyed it; it has essays and articles from a variety of sources and questions designed to help you spot the problem.

http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol7/iss1/reviews/rottenberg.htm
You can get one for 5 bucks here:
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Argument-Annette-T-Rottenberg/dp/0312133499

170. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191771 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm

someone who became a Christian yesterday had more real knowledge than the most brilliant professor in Oxford. I wrote this down verbatim.

This really really bothers me.
What the F*ck does that even mean?!
He must have different meanings for the words "more", "real" and "knowledge" than is commonly understood by the rest of the world.
There is no consistency, no questioning....aaargh!

Paula, I am so so sorry.
Thanks.

171. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191757 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 3:46 pm

rod-the-farmer,

You have a flask drive around your neck ?

Yeah, hic!
However, due to its small size (1cm X 4cm) it does not really hold a lot of booze.
:)

172. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191726 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Comment #191585 by NormanDoering

...here's a two part essay I wrote over a decade ago -- when there was not net as we know it today:

And then from the site linked to:

Only 5.25" DSDD floppy disks are available at this time.

Holy cow!
I remember those. They were actyually flopply.
That was only 15 years ago.
I have a 4cmX 1cm 4G flask drive around my neck.

As to this petition:
It is interesting to note there are good arguments on both sides here. Unfortunately, I can't find any reference to it in my Atheist Handbook and I am at a loss as to what to do about it.
Although I do like this from philrimmer:

Terrorised kids may find more help from terror inoculating lessons at school.

173. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191707 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Steve said:

Any evidence that doesn't fit What God Said is the work of the Devil, put there to delude atheist Darwinists.

The Devil doesn't delude me and I am an atheist Darwinist. I think you meant the Devil deludes the faithful Creationist/IDer.
To them I am the devil.


fizhburn:

A third reason is that it's kind of fun.

Yes.

Sharon McT:

I have learned a lot, and laughed a loT.

Double yes.

I too sometimes wonder why. My friends say why do you care so much?
I refer them to the cartoon Steve Zara posted a few days back. (Someone on the Internet is wrong!)
They ask why I waste my time with this.
I enjoy myself.
I enjoy the exchange of ideas.
It has helped me hone arguments, not just on ToE but in general.
Thanks.

174. Fleabytes

Comment #191671 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I thought this died.
With Richard Morgan comes resurrection.
Interesting.

I don't want to say anything bad about the guy; I really don't care that much. I will say that it was nice of him to post the MPhil rox mp3. I had a hard time trying to track that down. I thought I had contacted RM's son (I'm pretty sure I did) but he claimed no knowledge of what I was talking about.
So I am glad for MPhil's sake that he got what he wanted.

175. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191592 by Frankus1122 on June 11, 2008 at 9:17 am

Interesting ideas about demons.
Of course the real demon is us.
We are the devil incarnate tempting txp with logic and reason and science. The devil appears beautiful (like science) in order to deceive. The more evidence we produce that the Bible version of reality is false the more it proves we are of the devil.
Rather than the mountain of evidence proving the Theory of Evolution true, it does just the opposite.
The devil is a very powerful angel doncha know.

There is LOGIC at work defending the faith.

176. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191384 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I just stole this from phasmagigas on another thread:

when i see some biological phenomena (or read about it or whatever) i ask myself 'if evolution were true is that what youd possibly expect' and also 'if creation were true is that what youd possibly expect'

Then I thought of this article/interview/book/idea and thought this was a perfect example of the affirmative answer belonging to the first proposition.

177. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191383 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I think the really interesting point about this is the fact that it sort of proves that the brain was not intelligently designed.
I heard him interviewed by Bob McDonald on Quirks and Quarks a few weeks back:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/apr19.html

It is a bit more in depth interview than George's.

178. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191121 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comments by leigh,
Thanks. You said exactly what I was thinking.
It is odd that so many seem to understand the point while a small percentage of soaring intellects can't.
No worries. I have faith they will one day see the light.

P.S. Yeah, what MaxD said.

179. Regime change in heaven

Comment #191106 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

As I wrote elsewhere, for a brief moment last night I thought God was 'coming to take me home'. The massive rain storm that took place last night produced the loudest thunderclap I have ever experienced in my life. It must have went off right over my house. It shook the windows and made the ground rumble.
I am glad to see that my attacker has been defeated. Yeah humans!

180. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191069 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2008 at 7:06 am

I like rod-the-farmer's suggestion that we establish schools. The country needs to be brought into the 21st century, at least in terms of thought.

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191044 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2008 at 6:38 am

What a nice way to wake up! (Although I was up several times during the night due to a massive thunderstorm - I experienced the loudest thunderclap of my life. It was right over the house and shook the windows and the very ground. For a second I thought it was the Apocolyspe.
No, I didn't:))
Some excellent posts.
The qster's post confused me a bit. Not exactly sure what he is saying. I don't get the 'me-too MaxD' reference, but I rather enjoy "the foul mouthed Diacanu, verbally incontinent Rev Dark".
I especially enjoyed this squirt from the Rev.:

If you want to claim god, whatever brightly painted version or interpretation you favour, you have to start by bringing evidence to the table.

Goldy made me laugh with this:

I personally try to bend over backwards to accept what you tell me - but I can't because it is wrong.

alan baylis: well said. I also
"enjoy this superb, intellectually stimulating and unmonitored website".

Enough ass-kissing for now. I have minds in which to create cognative dissonace and to indoctrinate with critical thinking skills.
I am teaching my YEC Christain students how oil and natural gas is formed. Inconceivably, it takes slightly longer than 6000 years.

182. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190889 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Stryer,
Could you make it clear as to what you are saying?
Faith is unevidenced belief.
Most faithful try to support their belief with evidence. They try to prove the truth of their god using the means available to them. Hence this article.
Most people try to come up with reasons for what they believe. Very few say only, "I believe because I have faith."
Most people will try to provide reasons as to why their faith is reasonable.

How is to believe this wrong?

183. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190876 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 7:31 pm

txpiper said:

Twenty years ago, nobody but nobody would have ever suggested that bone or soft tissue could be preserved for 68 million years, so there is no expertise to appeal to. The fact that virtually nobody (at least publicly) questions the dates now, after the undeniable fact, does not indicate inquisitiveness on the part of the community.

Perhaps you missed Goldy's refutation of this statement in an earlier post. So in actual fact the 'undeniable fact' is deniable. I'll refresh your memory.

However, alternatives do exist, as has been pointed out in the accompanying perspective article in Science written by Eric Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects" (Science, vol. 307:1852).

"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive.

Strike one.

No, I am stating that if scientists are ever able to mimic things like that in a laboratory, it would be violating the belief that design can occur without intelligence being involved.

So by creating conditions for life to arise - putting together elements and molecules that may find themselves together at some place in the universe, and allowing these elements and molecules to be exposed to some energy source, as they might somewhere in the universe-that would be violating the belief that life can occur without intelligence involved?

Is my recreating the conditions that exist in nature the external influence of intelligence? Because if this is the case then you have defined nature as having intelligence guiding it, therefore it is intelligently designed.
Do you see a problem here?
It is a circular bit of reasoning. That tends to happen in bubbles.

Strike two.

I think I overheard someone mention the Rig Veda at a dinner party a couple of months ago. I'd never heard of it.

Yikes!
Charitably, we'll call that a foul ball.

I just don't grasp how you think scientists could experimentally disprove intelligent design while using their own intellect in the process. Can you explain how that would be possible?

How do you disprove something non-existent?
The onus is not on real scientists to disprove intelligent design but for its proponents to prove it true.
If you can do this I will believe it.
If you can provide real evidence, not just assertion, nor disbelief in the predictive and explanatory power of the Theory of Evolution, then I, and I would suspect most others here, would also believe in Intelligent Design.

There's the pitch.

The crowd waits in anticipation to see if txpiper will hit this out of the park, revolutionize science, prove he is way more sophisticated than anyone could have imagined and make believers out of the RDnetters.

Or strike out.

184. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190791 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Is it from Alberta?
Alberta is kinda like the Texas of Canada; God and oil.
I noticed that from the CanadaFreePress website that Climate Change is all nonsense as well.

185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190784 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm

It isn't all hopeless. If we can shift even the most vigorous theists even a little, just think of the impression we can make on those watching discussions who are far less certain.

Chinks in the armour, cracks in the wall, the bubble is wearing thin in places. I can't help but see it as an all or nothing type deal. I think at some point the wall falls down, the deadly blow is dealt through the armour, the bubble bursts.
Or I could be wrong. There could be a gradual wearing away of certainty.
I know I have become more sure of the truth of the Theory of Evolution since hanging out on this site. I never disbelieved it; but the massive weight of evidence presented and referenced here has lead me to be more aware of just how silly it is to suggest that everything was created in one "poof" of magic.
The nonsense posted here by people like txp is dealt with in such an exquisite manner, from such a number of posters with such clarity and acumen, that it is hard to believe that anyone witnessing the exchange could not be influenced as to correctness of 'our' position.

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190764 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Steve Zara said:

I am fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists

It is an interesting take on the situation. I can't speak for txp but I think it may have something to do with convincing yourself, or being conviced, early in the investigation. After early indoctrination in the conspiracy theory, everything else is filtered through that lens. ('Of course that is what an atheist would say, it's all part of the plot to exclude the truth of creationism').
An impenetrable wall is put up around the theory. Any attempts to point out flaws in the theory are met with hostility.
Now, a creationist could look at the sentences above and say, "That is exactly what the proponents of the Theory of Evolution do!"
But that is not the case. Real questions are asked and real answers are given. The ToE is falsifiable.
I don't think there is any evidence that would convince someone like txp that his Bible beliefs are misplaced.
Eveyone else is wrong and the Bible is the literal word of god, if you are in the faith bubble. It seems very hard to get out of the faith bubble. I invited txp to come outside, just for a moment, to see what his beliefs look like from out here in the real world. From his subsequent posts it is apparent that he declined my invitation.

187. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190678 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 11:15 am

Comment #190673 by croatcat:

Your experience sounds straight out of a sit-com

This gives me an idea...
Imagine the hilarity of a sitcom with a wacky creationist as the main character.

On the other hand I am sick of reality tv.

188. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190659 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 10:44 am

I'd like to see if we could take this thread to a more serious topic:

Comment #190653 by severalspeciesof:

It sucks like a Hoover.
I was going to say 'like a Kirby', but I didn't want to offend a particular contributor here, sorry... (Kirby is an exceptionally expensive line of vacuum cleaners here in the U.S.)

I have a Filter Queen but it is old and the old girl doesn't suck like she used to.
I've heard that Dysan doesn't lose its suck. At least that's what the ads claim. Has anyone found this to be true?

189. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190651 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 10:32 am

From hfaber:

I thought it was a parody...

That is funny. As Homer says, "It's funny because it's true."

190. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190563 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 8:56 am

The central point of the atheist, that all somehow came about randomly through evolution,

I stopped there.

The penny has to drop at some point for these people.
They must come to the realization(or realisation) that their arguments have been successfully refuted.
As I said elsewhere, it is not the case that creationist/Iders know more than 'we' do. They know less. They argue from a position of ignorance.

I read the last line of the article and I agree:

The reader is encouraged to study further and to ask questions.

191. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190526 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #190396 by Greyman
Thanks for that post. It seems to be a reasonable explanation based on the evidence we have of how chemical reactions occur.
Timothy Xavier's response must include a mechanism for how God does it. If it is god directing - providing the intention and intelligence that txp sees behind this- why does it mess up sometimes? Are the mistakes of replication part of god's plan? If so, how does one come to this knowledge? How do you know what you know?

192. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190465 by Frankus1122 on June 9, 2008 at 6:53 am

David Robertson wrote:

Frankus said:

God fixes CD players and covers bad cheques but allows massive loss of life in natural disasters and won't heal amputees. Why?

Another strawman argument. What you mean is that some people think that God fixes CD players etc. Personally I think that is absurd and nothing to do with biblical Christianity

I bolded the 'etc.' above because the 'etc.' is actually referring to the money for the bad cheque being provided to you by god, as is evidenced from the quotation of mine above yours.
If we take out the "God fixes CD players" and insert "covers bad cheques", we have this statement from you:

'some people think that God covers bad cheques.' followed by: "Personally I think that is absurd and nothing to do with biblical Christianity."

We are in agreement then.

Why couldn't you have just said this months ago David? It would have caused so much unecessary grief.
I suspected long ago that you couldn't possibly believe that your bad cheque incident was evidence of prayer answered. I went so far as to suggest you might be lying (if even just to yourself). Now you have confirmed it. Or perhaps you have just changed your mind because it is only now that you realize (or realise) the absurdity of your former position.

EDITED: to nail the point a bit more clearly.

193. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190321 by Frankus1122 on June 8, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Throwing out most of the discipline of geology, as would be required if these rocks were 6000 years old, is not on the table."

Well of course it's not on the table. We know that going in. How could it be? This is mainstream science. That isn't allowed.

What Goldy said.
It's not on the table because it is such an extreme explanation without any evidence to support it. There are many similar extreme explanations: aliens did it; a time traveling creationist from the future put it there to mess up real scientists;.... The list of whacked out 'explanations' is as limitless as the imagination. The massive predictive and explanatory weight of, as Goldy said, geology and physics and on and on, support looking for an explanation, not in the realm of fantasy, but within the framework of established science.

That is how a real explanation will be found.

It is not the case that creationism as an explanation is being excluded exclusively. It is being excluded with all the other nutty ideas. It just so happens that Timothy Xavier P. holds the creationist nutty idea in a place close to his heart. It is the starting place for him.

194. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190015 by Frankus1122 on June 8, 2008 at 7:19 am

I shouldn't be here as I have work to do but...

rod-the-farmer: it is on the Fleabytes thread, which is massive so I will try to summarize:
David Robertson took some kids on a bus trip but didn't have enough money to cover the cheque he wrote to the driver. He prayed to god and god gave him the money. MIRACLE! ANSWERED PRAYER! EVIDENCE OF GOD!

And your comments to utelme made my laugh.

As for 'clearthinker', noodly's response is a good one.
I will predict there will be no cogent response.
As Brian English stated: "He'll find justification in his contradictory scripture to justify his actions... "

clearthinker you have pissed me off again with your failure to grasp the point and attempts at misdirection. You NEVER answer questions directly and will, if you respond, pick on a minor point and avoid the main thrust of the argument put forth.
God fixes CD players and covers bad cheques but allows massive loss of life in natural disasters and won't heal amputees. Why? Because we sinned. That sin was to choose to disobey (a bad/wrong action) before we knew what the difference between bad and good/right and wrong was.
This is your explanation for hurricanes and earthquakes.
It is our fault. Or rather it is Adam's fault- no, strike that-Eve's fault (let's blame the woman) for falling to temptation from the devil. (The devil! You believe in the devil. Muhahahaha!) Some guy, 6,000 years ago did something he was incapable of knowing was wrong pissed off an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, and as a result of that the god-thing caused or allowed for pain and suffering to enter into the world. I am responsible for Adam and Eve's impossible transgression and that is why I am now uncomfortably hot and have a bit of a headache.
God won't fix my headache or lower the heat a bit or prevent my friend's 4 year old son from developing a fungus inside his body that may eventually kill him unless he gets a bone marrow transplant from his 9 year old sister, but he will cover your bad cheques.
God loves us.
Okay. After typing that out it is all clear to me.
Fuck off.

195. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #189953 by Frankus1122 on June 7, 2008 at 10:04 pm

a)a music lover
b)a bastard
c) Uri Geller

196. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189940 by Frankus1122 on June 7, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Comment #189938 by pzmyers

I was worried by the fact that the first part of your post was not on topic. Luckily you redeemed yourself in the second paragraph. :)

197. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #189939 by Frankus1122 on June 7, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Skutter:

I think Barry Pearson meant to say by Comment #187948, this:

Yes, it does.

198. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #189900 by Frankus1122 on June 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm

This is interesting to me as a Christian girl in my class gave a speech about the disasters in the world and how they might be a good thing in that they bring out human kindness in the form of relief efforts.
My questioning of her was kind but rigorous.

199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189896 by Frankus1122 on June 7, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I wonder if he looked at the video that Quine mentioned in # 189615?

Would that be the one I just reposted the link to alan?
Sorry about that. ;)

200. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189891 by Frankus1122 on June 7, 2008 at 1:20 pm

txpiper of course meant WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). He is just not as up-to-date on the latest news from the world of entertainment sports, or biology, or geology, or paleontology, or... you get the picture.

txpiper starts with the answers (in Genesis). Then he looks for evidence to support that belief.
True or false?
Did you begin by looking at all the evidence of how life came to be as it is and then come to understand that it was all right there in Genesis or was it the other way around?
Evidence first and then Genesis or
Genesis first and then selective evidence to fit the story?
Here is another question: Is there anything that would cause you to believe that the stories in Genesis are not true?
It is a fairly important question that one. You see there is something that would cause me not to believe in the Theory of Evolution: evidence. If there were some biological feature that was not able to be explained by ToE as it currently is understood, I would question the truth of the Theory. If, for example, there were features of some life forms that were irreducibly complex; that is to say they could not possibly come about through a process of random mutation and natural selection, I would have doubts about the current understanding of ToE.
No such irreducibly complex biological features have yet been found. There have been claims that things such as eyes are irreducibly complex but these have been explained by the powerful powerful Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is one which has great explanatory powers. But there is more: it has amazing predictive powers as well. This leads me to the conclusion that it may be right.
Does Genesis or the rest of the Bible have such amazing explanatory and predictive powers? No. Not to anyone who has the ability to honestly evaluate the information presented. If you already firmly believe that the Bible does have predictive powers then you may be convinced that it has predictive powers. But look at that last sentence. There is a problem there. Twister is a fun party game but not a good way to evaluate information.
Begin with evidence and see where it leads you. Do not begin with the answers and try to shoehorn the evidence to fit your preconceived notion. Quine had a link to a very good video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Check that out and explain it away with evidence.
You can't just say, "I simply can't believe it." Although this does seem to be a favourite tactic.
If you were honest with yourself you would realize you are wrong. Honesty is not just a virtue of the 'saved'.
You can be good without god.
Trust me.
(Don't be scared by my avatar; it's just a cartoon picture).