451. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196285 by Goldy on June 19, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Who are "we" in the transcend question?

I'm reading that as H. sapiens - the stress being on "sapiens" :-)

452. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196267 by Goldy on June 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm

When it's just about transcending evolutionary imperatives - we certainly can (for example wipe us all out through war or live in complete celibacy, or use contraceptives etc).

I'm with Steve here. Our "transcending" is actually part of evolution :-) We are using something which evolved to think and thus our thinking evolved, which led to the evolution of the thinking organ, etc...
We are going to try and make sure our offspring is smarter than the others, so there will be selection pressures on intelligence (as defined by us). Obviously looks too, but smart OK person will probably cut the grade better than good lucking thicko (generally speaking).
Mind you, we don't know what the future holds - maybe some Toba is waking up, ready to cause a great natural catastrophe which will alter teh environment. Maybe the pressure for survival will change the direction evolution dictates for our survival as a species...

Edit - all the above is pure speculation on my part!

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

Comment #196261 by Goldy on June 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Teratornis

Comment #195874 by Goldy:

He'll probably say something banal, like, use less oil.

Credit where it is due - Irate said that. I was quoting him.
Yes, the emoticon did show my jocularity :-) I have sent you a few pieces from some news sites that contradict the running out scenario (your peak oil) but that is just to needle you in a nice way. I know we have to change our lifestyle to take into account that the era of cheap oil is over. Having a couple of countries with a combined population of a couple of billion peopple, all wanting our lifestyle, is bound to make the prices go up and the reserves down.
The biomass thing is a red herring - I don't think we can, given the population that needs feeding, ethically do this. After dumping produce in countries at our subsidised prices, we have broken the farming cultures in other countries, I feel. China is turning over arable land for factories so food is coming in from somewhere and I don't think it is from Africa. And as you say, demand is too high for this red herring to be anything but.
There was an article in the NZ Herald about producing oil by basically fermentation. I'll dig it up. But again, it is a red herring. We need a different lifestyle. While I hope personal travel is not sent back to the way it was at teh dawn of the 20th century, I feel we are going to have a slowdown. Certainly those package holidays to Corfu etc are going to have to stop...at least for now. Should be good news for Brighton, Blackpool, Morecambe and Skegness
:-D

Edit - can't find the article I read, but this has the same story...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
I particularly liked this title when Googling...GMO bacteria eat waste, shit crude oil - The Something Awful Forums :-)

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

Comment #195874 by Goldy on June 19, 2008 at 12:20 am

He'll probably say something banal, like, use less oil.

But txtpiper said...

Yeah, just tell them that you were mistaken and that enterprising engineers have figured out how to turn organic material into syn-crude in just hours:

"Thermo-depolymerization mimics the Earth's own recipe for fossil fuels, but shaves millions of years off the production time. Waste, turkey guts, for instance, is mixed with water and ground into a thick slurry, which is then heated to 500 degrees Fahrenheit (260 degrees Celsius), pressurized at roughly 600 pounds per square inch (42 kilograms per square centimeter), and cooked for about 15 to 60 minutes until the organic material's molecular structure, its polymers, begin to break apart.

Pressure on the mixture is then dropped, releasing steam that is recaptured to power the remaining process. More heat, then distillation, creates the byproducts, natural gas, which is diverted back to fuel the bio-reformer, crude oil, which can be sold to refineries, minerals, to be used in materials like fertilizers, and water."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

This works on any kind of garbage.

Don't beat yourself up over it, but you could apologize to your students on behalf of the scientific community for the occasions when their religious convictions delay research and development.

We don't need to use less ;-)

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

Comment #195866 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 11:57 pm

The one area in which Church scores highly is in its community life. I don't miss the intellectual gymnastics, but I do miss many of the people. My Christian friends were amongst the kindest people I've ever had the privilage of spending time with. I'd be a liar to say otherwise.

Sound like my group of friends - all atheists. Or my Chinese family...errr, all atheists too :-) Though rather superstitious ;-)
Edit - unlike church groups, we won't put any pressure on you. But if you order a Heineken....
If ever you are in New Zealand, I'll see that we outdo your church group. This is totally unconditional - some of us believe, pretty much most don't (actually, the one believer - Catholic Chinese lass...not sure she was 100% in her belief but she liked mass). One thing - you gotta like beer....

Edit - pub we go to brews its own beer. We will not pressure you any, but if you order a Heineken...

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

Comment #195788 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 7:42 pm

House group leader, Alpha course helper, Church drama team leader.

What on earth are these? Most interesting ;-)
Protestant, I take it. Can't see Egyptian Coptic Church memebers doing theis - though they do ahve a church not far from me here in NZ. Have to say, most of the Arabic looking blokes in my neighbourhood are actually Christian :-)

457. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195776 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Asfalios, best ask the prof himself. Why ask us? We cannot answer without colouring our answers with our views and it is rather presuptuous for one to answer for another.
If he said it, I personally think he is wrong. I personally think he used a bad choice of words.

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

Comment #195772 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 7:16 pm

DR, are you editing your entries without letting people know? This smacks of deception.

My profound apologies, I missed a bit. I had, in my mind, contracted you post and one part got to another. I apologise unreservedly.
However, if only God can convert, then why is it the perogative of RD.net and its convert's corner?
Another little point - saves me buying your book

The God of the Bible. Jesus Christ. Because he is the truth.

Islam is wrong? Jesus was only a prophet - God cannot be human and therefore Jesus cannot be any part of God, much less the truth. The Quran is the last word of God, revealed to Muhammed. So, technically, the Quran is the truth. And the Jews are still waiting...

459. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195767 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 7:08 pm

I will explain my logical reasoning which leads me to conclude life had a designer. Like I said before, my reasoning and logic tells me that if I see something that looks designed I can make a inference that it is. I do not have to witness or see the designer. In my logic and reasoning a design takes a designer.

We choose to disagree, but I observe design in many places; in the complexity of life, the fine tuning of our solor system, in addition to many others. These observances are support for a logical reason that there was a designer of life.

I don't know much more to say. May be this is not logical reasoning to you or we may have a different definition of what constitutes logic and reason.

To infer a designer is much more logical in my mind then any other inference. Most of society agrees. It can't be proven otherwise.

Sorry, I keep reading this and all I see is that you infer. This is you personally - the inference for evolution has research data backing our inference. Google it - there are many, from fossils to similarity between species to information encoded in DNA. It's not a case of a scientist looking and thinking "Aaah, it looks that way so I'll write a paper".
Not that I think you are stupid really but I do think you just don't know or, more likely, you are taking the piss. But a better argument would have been more meaningful. Everything you gave is a personal view - you have nothing to back up your own opinion. The complexity of life? Heck, why not mention snowflakes? They are massively complex and yet can se shown to take their shape merely by the interaction of water molecules between themselves. You assume life is complex, but it is easily broken down into constituent forms and the larger species (which merely comprise of the crust on the icing that is life on Earth) are so related that they may, if one really wants to, be lumped into super groups (also remember that the groupings we have are all man-made constructs - thank http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html for it all). Life is not so complex as you'd like to think.
Youor final sentence is the nub of the matter - you don't know so you'll stick with what you were told, no matter if you were told wrong. In the past, you would have believed the Earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth (you don't, do you? Please say you don't!) and you would have dogmatically stuck to what you were told then as you do now. As it is, most of society does not believe (well, maybe in the US...) - even the main churches do not believe that evolution is wrong, theough they will attempt to point a finger at their own particular god as a start of life. But then, we are not discussing ambiogenesis but the appearance of a designer.
It is hard ot take you very seriously - you have previously flipped between a literalist to denying teh very thing the Bible states. Your assertion that spontaneous life cannot be real denies Genesis, and by inference, God, who is the Designer. If spontaneous life cannot be, how can a designer? He, after all, designed it. He made it and made it, I assume, spontaneously. If not, if he had to make it piece by piece, then this detracts the godliness from him and I know you don't want that. If he had to learn, one assumes he could not be eternal and all knowing - his mind evolves and, by my thinking, this infers he evolves which suggests he is not the only or the first.
We do not have a different interpretation of the words, or meaning, logic and reason. We do, however, have a different level of application. It would behove you to try and meet us on our ground if you wish to avoid ridicule. Or finally come out and admit you are taking the piss :-)

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

Comment #195753 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 6:42 pm

what kind of Christian were you before you converted?

One does wander at his riposte to an answer. "Aha, you're God is not my God!"
Oystein, tell him you were a Catholic ;-)

461. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195750 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Before I leave, do any of you have any prayer requests? My group is praying for your repentance and salvation.

Save on the repentance (can't repent - not pented yet...) and salvation and ask for some books. And the ability to infer properly and maybe debate logically.
What a cop out. You are an atheist, eh? C'mon, admit it!

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

Comment #195693 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm

By the way - I have no converts. That is the perogative of RD net and its 'converts corner'.

Is it me, or has this entry been edited to read something completely different? I do recall it saying that converts were the perogative of God, only he could convert.
DR, are you editing your entries without letting people know? This smacks of deception.

463. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #195689 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Check out conservapedia's homosexual entry
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

464. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195687 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Do any of you talk to Dawkins. I heard through some very reliable sources that he is starting to question himself and might even be contemplating making a public statement in regards to his uncertainty of Macroevolution.

Any sources on your side?

RD can probably best answer this himself but it is another topic. The highly evident logic behind there being a designer, please.

465. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195674 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm

It seems apparent that this discussion is way over your head. You are so narrow minded that you have lost all logic and reason.

At this point, my theory is, you are either playing with me or really that stupid. There is no other theory.

Is this your logical answer for the designer? This? Basically boils down to "You wouldn't understand anyway. If you don't know, you are stupid."
Well, your mates must be really proud of you. Man, you defended your position well, didn't you. The power of your argument will be talked about for years to come... ;-)
Seriously, give us a logical argument for the designer. If he is so blindingly self evident, it should be easy! We may then give you some criticisms of what you said which you will have answers to. After all, this is how science works too and apparently it is all powerful, etc, etc. Just answer Brian's question.

466. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195671 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I think you meant "grammar".

Also missing a question mark at the end.

467. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195666 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Is this your logic behind the designer, RtG? I dunno, I can see one or two flaws in it...

468. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195658 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Yes, you will claim this is not scientific, but you have no scientific theory of the origins of life. The origins of life, a designer, is the only logical reasonable answer.

OK, so provide the logic behind it. We are all waiting.

469. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195650 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I must tell you, they are dumbfounded of the idiotic banter between you guys. That you actually believe each others deception.

There's more of you? How frightening!
Anyway, the designer - let's hear your side. Get your friends to give you a hand, if you want. Answer Brian's persistent question. Then you can tell me if animals have free will...

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

Comment #195645 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Goldy - can you not see that your own statement is self-contradictory. You ask people to engage with civility in the same breath as describing someone who defected from your camp as 'not of the soundest mind' (strange that you did not say that when he belonged to your faith). Is this your idea of civility?!

QED. I rest my case.
For those that don't know RM, he, I believe, suffered from depression (I shall have to check this again). My mother suffers from this condition - it is mind altering. Luckily, it can be treated, though methinks religion may not provide the best answer.

471. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195637 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm

...I have no case for ID....

There, that's better ;-)

472. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195636 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm

RtG, I must thank you for Conservapedia. Indeed, the whole office is in stiches. Damn, couldn't you have waited for Friday?
Made my day - comedy has never been so funny!
Quick question - everything in it has a very high Christian bias - do other religions not count for anything? Hmmm, maybe I should ask them...
Again, brilliant, mate, absolutely brilliant!

473. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195633 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Britain, with its atheistic schools, now leads the EU in teen drunkenness. Among 13-year-olds, Wales was most drunken, Scotland second and England fourth.[4]

WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
From http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

474. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195627 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm

The central claim of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable...

Hehehehehe - now what is it I am always told...."It's ONLY a theory! Not even fact!" :-D
Aaaah, good to say that!

The IDM's refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.[36] In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.

So, RtG - is the Designer God? Or are you open to other possibilities? Aliens, say, from another galaxy, far, far away...?
Did like the disclaimer here

The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that, and to impart what you have learned to others by editing here. The truth shall set you free.

No other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths

No bias, then, eh? And the truth shall indeed set you free - just make sure it has God in it ;-)

Hehehehe - just glancing through the Conservapedia commandments...

When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

They also, I notice, have a deep suspicion of anything "liberal" don't they? Mind you, not called Conservapedia for nothing, I guess...

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

Comment #195286 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 2:27 am

Though Atheists seek evidence the theists argue that proof is not required or counter to that; proof exists all around us.

So good, I have to do it again

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

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

Comment #195282 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 2:19 am

ctrkev

I disagree with what most people say when someone converts from Cristianity to Atheism is converting to reason

I'm not 100% in agreement with the way you use "convert" here. That implies a moving from one faith (religious) to another (again, religious). I know what you mean - just don't feel it is right. I would say one loses faith or becomes atheist.
And again, I can see your point about reason. Obviously there is a reason for you to convert (I can say that because you picked up a faith) and it answered questions for you - it clarified thoughts in your head and it made sense. It was reason to you. However, if there are no gods (and of course you took the Pauline sect as your faith - why, may I ask? Had you considered the other faiths on the table?) then we have to use reason to answer our questions - reason as in rational thought. I know you will agree with me that there is no rationality in believing in gods - look at all the arguments for them by the theists. All are apologetic and try to disguise the lack of godly appearances by esotericism and hidden knowledge. "God moves in mysterious ways" and "One cannot presume to understand God" - that sort of thing.
I do hope your theism is a comfort to you as atheism is a comfort to me and hopefully to Oystein, who is also called Loke.
Can I again ask you why Christianity? Not Islam? Buddhism? Animism? Wicca?

Edit

I also believe He loves you more than anything regardless of the choice you made.

And there is a Hell because...? I also have it on good authority he doesn't like homosexuals, Muslims, Christians, Jews, anyone who worships other gods, atheists (obviously), Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, etc, etc, etc...

477. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195252 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 1:22 am

Even if Kardy's Tom Baker....I mean, Go...Designer (Tom Baker, to me, was the best Time Lord!) did have a time machine - and who is to say he didn't - I still want to know how Nature would be too slow. Doesn't make sense.

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

Comment #195238 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 1:04 am

Tank - welcome to the world of rational argument. A word of advice - don't touch the atheist faith or you will get this kind of emotive reaction.

Yes, the lucky man can stay with the likes of you. I have to say you are, at least in your written form, one of the more unpleasant, arrogant and friendless people I come across. I dare say you are OK as a man when met in person but here you are someone that I would avoid going to any church to meet. Are you actively trying to keep people atheist? Your only "convert" as far as I can see has been Richard Morgan, and he was not exactly of the soundest mind.
Can you not engage with civility?

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

Comment #195235 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 12:53 am

There are of course plenty scientists who have no difficulty in believing in miracles

Really?

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

Comment #195230 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 12:48 am

Clearthinker - all personal opinions. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

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

Comment #195227 by Goldy on June 18, 2008 at 12:16 am

Loke, I admire your courage.

Having been raised as a Christian, I felt like I was betraying my family by giving up my faith.

You had no choice in your faith - I am sure your family will understand. After all, you are still you.
Teratornis...

Now perhaps we can get to the real question: what do you think about peak oil?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/oil-shortage-a-myth-says-industry-insider-842778.html
And, of course, given that many will tell you that all this oil arrived after a mere 6000 years, should we worry ;-) In fact, in the Lying for Jesus thread, we are told oil forms after only a few minutes. We're safe!! :-D

482. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #195206 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I lack sufficient faith to construct a reality in which Bigfoot can roam free.

Teratornis, he does exist. It's just that there is only one of him and he has a large patch to cover...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7457894.stm
Now imagine trying to travel incognito across continents to your next gig. Obviously he has to shave and of course, who will believe in his bigfootedness if they see him not hirsute. He has to wait a while for the hair to grow again.
So hard being a bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch/etc.

483. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195202 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Much as I like playing a devl's advocate, in this case......no :-) Even I could not make myself sound so lame in public!

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

Comment #195201 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 10:02 pm

I wish one wacko posting would not hijack a whole thread of comments.

Be nice if they could just give us reasonable and rational reasons as to their choice for us. God is lurve and Jesus is the main dude just doesn't ring true to me. And if an intelligent believer can see the flaws in the whole religion argument and indeed have an ex-atheist theologian accentuate those flaws in the argument, what chance does someone have merely by imploring us to follow Jesus going to have.
And, something that really annoys me, why always Christians? Where are the Muslims, the hindus, the Buddhists, the animists, the Wiccans, the Jews, etc? Surely in the great mass of wordly religions, there muct be intelligent people who would like to clearly and rationally explain why there is a god or gods and why we are to follow them.

485. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195198 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Methinks Godly read the wrong book...you know how kids can play games...change the book covers and the like... :-)

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

Comment #195195 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Funny, eh? The athiest turned believer had a hand in turning the believer into an atheist :-)
Tank

Come to Jesus Christ and praise his name. Belief, Praise, Repentance and Love will do wonders for you.

Please change your minds, please look into the truth and re-discover how awesome Jesus Christ is and what you can accomplish with Him working through you. You know, in your heart, it is true.

That sounds remarkably like a personal opinion. Can you provide evidence for this?

487. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195188 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Was RtG squashed, or has he given up on us insane infidels?

Maybe it went something like this...

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

And to keep the momentum, while looking up that reference, I found this in Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/review/R34AXNDF0WBN9D)

18 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
A vivid picture of the emptiness of atheism., September 7, 2000
By Godly Gadfly

I decided to read this novel because it is widely acclaimed as a contemporary science fiction classic. Douglas Adams' description of Arthur Dent, who is the lone man to survive the destruction of the planet earth, is consistently humorous and entertaining. Dent is set loose to roam the galaxy, accompanied with an alien friend who is thankfully equipped with the indispensable Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
As the novel progresses, it becomes evident that despite the superficial whimsical tone, Adams is dealing with deeper themes relating to the meaning and existence of human life. The absurdity created by his imagination is not just a matter of light-hearted sci-fi entertainment, but is a cloak which Adams uses to convey his philosophy of human life and his personal worldview.

One needs to recall that this novel was born in the late 1970s, in the hey-day of technology and space travel, a time when there was a great deal of optimism and faith in science as the saviour of mankind. Adams mocks this human arrogance. The arrogance of Bent's fellow-humans in destroying his home, becomes a microcosm for the arrogance of humankind, and when it is applied to man's own home earth, results in man's own destruction. Adams' scorn for scientific arrogance is especially manifest when it appears that the rulers of earth are not scientists, but their own laboratory mice, who were secretly conducting large-scale experiments on their captors all along.

Yet this novel achieves much more than a scoffing of scientific arrogance. It becomes painfully evident that something essential is missing from the universe described in the Hitchhiker's Guide: God. When questioned by man about his existence, God "promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." God's absence from Adams' fictional universe corresponds to God's absence in Adams' personal worldview. The worldview which Adams believes in and portrays is a galaxy without a Creator. Adams is in fact a self-confessed "radical atheist", and holds this position very seriously.

But if Adam's universe is a world without God, this leads to an inevitable question: In such a universe, what is the meaning and purpose of life? Adams toys with this question when he describes the "The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything." After seven and a half million years of calculation, the super computer "Deep Thought" announces that the answer is "Forty-two." This meaningless answer is incomprehensible, and is apparently so because we don't understand the question properly! Here Adams whimsically propounds his purpose for planet earth: earth is a gigantic experiment, because it is on earth that the question about the meaning and purpose of life is voiced, but never answered! The purpose of earth is to raise the question about its purpose.

In Adams' atheistic worldview, the question about the purpose of life cannot be answered, because the existence of the very creator of the universe is denied. Such a question can only be asked, answered, and understood in a Christian worldview where the existence of the Creator is maintained, because apart from Him, creation is indeed purposeless. In this respect, the message of Adams' classic is the same as that of the Bible book of Ecclesiastes: there is no purpose and meaning in a world that rejects God. However, it is eternally unfortunate that Adams does not have the same conclusion as Ecclesiastes, where the premise of practical atheism is reversed, God's existence once again affirmed, and purpose discovered by serving and obeying God the Creator. Present day adherents of practical atheism who share Adams' empty worldview will discover that they will spend their life in the same way as Adams - in life whimsically hitchhiking an empty earth without God, and in death discovering that that God was always there, but that by their rejection of Him in the past, they will spend eternity without Him in the future. But then it will be too late. Because unlike the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, eternity without God has no room for frivolous laughter, but only for sorrow and regret.

In portraying the emptiness of an atheistic worldview, Adams is outstanding. In endorsing this worldview, Adams is to be most pitied. May God spare us from echoing his endorsement.

488. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195180 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 8:47 pm

The Troll has been taken care of.

Now that's what I call a mighty fine smiting! :-)

489. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #195176 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Why are there so many - read MAJORITY - of discussions that are "black-white", i.e., straight-straight and gay-gay or lesbian-lesbian, but there is little, if any, discussion regarding those of us who are bigendered, bisexual, bioriented, or whatever term for those of us of a "bi" nature?

Keeps the conversation easier :-) Actually, it may be easier to use the black and white scenario in this case to se the standards, as it were. Then we can rightly assume that there are shades of grey and give reasons for that.
Didn't they do this research a few years ago? I seem to remember that one of the questions asked then was whether the changes resulted in the sexual orientation or were a result of the sexual orientation. I'm guessing they answered that now - but as Carto's Conundrum shows there are aspects that don't sit well with this current theory.
Ah, well, it's science. All debatable and open to critical scrutiny :-)

490. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195169 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Because nature isn't fast enough for God. He has a time machine, remember.

OK, so the designer has a time machine - why would the speed of Nature be an issue.
Speaking of issues, I dare say txty or RtG might have some with this manifestation of Go...errrr, the designer.
Aaaah, methinks this thread must peter out soon...it's getting silly :-)

491. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195165 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Because nature isn't fast enough for God. He has a time machine, remember.

Ah, ah, ah - not god. Designer. Mustn't get all confused - you are trying to show ID as a science, remember ;-)

492. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195161 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Interesting. What a bunch-o-wackos you Brits are.

It'll be the bad teeth and terrible cooking.... ;-)

493. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195159 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Or perhaps you could compare the genes of the human with an ancient sample from some fossilized marrow from the common ancestor. If the new genes are organized in some spectacular or unusual way, that would be evidence of tampering.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116083223.htm

Who done crop circles? Dunno - my mate had a mate who know a few circlemakers.

But if the designer was sufficiently clever that they invented new genes to produce a radical shift from a proto-ape to a proto-human, then you can't rely on finding fig genes in the code, or some such.

Or you could just evolution do its thing. Why waste time fiddling with the genes when nature does that anyway? As it is, the major changes phenotypically speaking don't really need a massive genotypic alteration.

494. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195128 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2144652/Most-complex-crop-circle-ever-discovered-in-British-fields.html
Odd, eh? I mention crop circles, then go to the Telegraph and voila. Spooky.

495. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195126 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Do you think that the aliens would be able to determine that you are 100% naturally evolved, with a certainty?

Yes. They would probably see all living things as different variations of the same thing.

How would they go about looking for evidence of tampering with your genetic code, at some point in the history of your genome?

Same way we can spot viral sequences in DNA now. And, like us, they would be able to see where the changes occurred between different species.
How all this ties back to the ur-cell, I don't know. I'm not too good on ambiogenesis but I don't think an eternal being, never mind one called God, made that ;-)

496. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195122 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Again, with the tomato, I think a look at the DNA would let us know if it was designed, bred or it evolved. We have viral DNA in us - and I think they just code viral DNA :-) If the tomato had a gene sequence for, let's say, pork flavour and it was found that the sequence was highly analogous to the same sequence that make pigs taste, errr, porky, one might hear a wee bell ringing. After all, plants and animals last shared a common ancestor a long time ago - seems very odd that a specifically animal sequence should be in a plant.

497. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195118 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Do you think that, presented with a fine human specimen such as yourself, they could determine that you were evolved instead of designed?

Given the compromises involved in our design, it's ability to adapt (over generations) to different environments and the similarity between us and other life forms, yes, I dare say they would see us as evolved rather than designed. After all, who would be so damn sloppy in the designing?

498. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195116 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:45 pm

What if the object 'designed' was a new breed of tomato?

The clue would lie within, in its DNA :-)

499. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195112 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:41 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_stones
How can we tell the above are not as a result of sentient movement? We have natural theories about how they do what they do, but are we sure?
Yes, we are...pretty much.
So, Kardy, you see, there are more than enough clues left to tell if something is natural or "designed"
Of course, we might head off to a crop circle tangent... :-)

500. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195110 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm

A better analogy would have been something like Stonehenge. After all, we have no idea of purpose (just educated guessing) and apart from the bluestones, all are naturally occuring materials. How can we tell it isn't natural? How do we know dolmens in Britanny are not natural? Yet, oddly, we can tell.
Or teepee rings, like the one I saw in Canada. Looked natural to me until someone pointed out a few salient features...