501. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197631 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 11:59 am

Dammit, I've got Infidel on my bookshelf, but just so so many books to read, I've not got around to it yet. But I'm rather militantly atheistic in my daily life anyway, so any more upsetting reading might push me right over the edge.

502. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197615 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 11:31 am

Tera,

I'm not even going to pick it up...

503. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197591 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 11:04 am

It must be a parody: "The unintentional best seller", come on!

504. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197555 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 10:18 am

Something about this article bothers me. Have I missed it, or does the article not actually report any backlash, but simply says that McEwan "might" be liable to prosecution under the hate laws while not indicating whether this is at all likely, possible, or whether anyone has yet reacted to the interview?

It's like putting up a big banner saying: "Please instigate a backlash" and then being surprised when it happens.

505. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197544 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 10:04 am

mordacious,

I should also say that I was referring to myself with the "moral relativism" bit. Although I also think I am a bit of a "logical positivist", but I gather that that has been discredited.

506. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197542 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 10:02 am

Tera,

The real life me is far more strident and abusive, but when typing things to this site I feel I ought to try to back things up. But this causes me trouble, since I have almost no knowledge of anything at all except theoretical physics. So, even though I do have reasonably established positions on, say, abortion, they're not things I can back up with any real conviction, and I tend to be able to see the other person's side too much.

"A person who sees both sides of an argument sees nothing at all" is a quote from someone or other.

507. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197541 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:59 am

Fanusi,

What you're saying ties in well with History_Junky's suggestion that some obviously brown people could stand up and be counted as being against Islam. My girlfriend is from South East Asia, and when she hears various Polish people in her workplace complaining about what it is like in England she can (and does) say, "Well if you hate it so much, why don't you go home?" without anyone thinking she's being a right-wing nutcase.

508. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197536 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

Hi Mordacious,

Everyone has their "pet project". One of the things I find most interesting about the discussions here and at, say, Pharyngula, is that we all like to think we're nicely rational about things, but there are those personal bugbears that make some of us totally blind to evidence or argument. Whether it's abortion, or a Jewish state, or peak oil, or veganism, or animal testing, or moral relativism, or a whole host of other things. Trouble is, we're not good at noticing what our own blindness is. Mine is probably that I cannot see how vaguely wishy-washy I tend to be.

509. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197523 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:36 am

Tera,

I'm afraid that I do not have a great in-depth knowledge of history, but I don't think that what we did hundreds of years ago matters all that much in terms of how people should react to our words now. I am not expecting people in Mongolia or Macedonia to rampage into England and rape/kill people who do not submit to them, but there's a bit of a history of that.

510. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197512 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:17 am

Criticise a white person for their bad behaviour and it is ok, because you are attacking the person.

Criticise a non-white person for their behaviour, and you're attacking their culture and trying to impose your Western ways on them. Don't you know that you don't have a monopoly on ways of behaving? Don't you try to use your colonial attitudes on me. Blah blah.

Or, that's how it comes across to me. And others no doubt.

511. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197504 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

I'm not sure what this "Islamism" is. Is it a word that people have invented so that they can criticise Islam without making it sound like they are? Does it just mean "those bits of Islam that exist but no one wants to admit to, because they'd show themselves up to be the nonsense-loving cretins that they really are"?

Well, I obviously think so.

I despise Islamism, but I also despise Islam, and Catholicism. And I'd probably despise Anglicanism, if I could pin it down.

Are we not allowed to express our dissatisfaction with *anything* these days?

512. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197421 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 2:50 am

Just cos I like sticking my oar in:

To say:

There is no substitute for using animal models to test medication, and there is no substitute for ape and monkey models in order to test neurological treatments. This is the only way.

513. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197411 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 2:12 am

Tera,

I was going to mention abortion in parallel with killing the male chicks more in the sense of "kill it because it's inconvenient" rather than anything else. But I admit that I don't have particularly strong views about many of these things - as I said before, there is a lot of conflict and I don't know which side of the fence to come down on or, indeed, whether there needs to be a fence at all.

Animal testing is something that bothers me, though, and I can't really reconcile my attitude to it versus my attitude to carnivorism, so I may be being inconsistent. I would like some evidence that we cannot do without "animal models" in the present day. What do we actually test? Whether something is toxic? Are things that are toxic to animals always toxic to humans?

514. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197272 by Sargeist on June 21, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Hi TeraBrat,

I do understand that the conditions in which animals are kept is not exactly pleasant (where I am putting myself in their situation and imagining how I would feel, which is slightly artificial), but my original idle musing was about whether eating meat or "using" animals would be viewed differently if we humans could not get our essentials otherwise. I know it is all an exercise in what-ifness, but I think that these sorts of considerations are interesting and help us to understand the whys of our actions.

I find commenting on these sorts of issues difficult because I have a multitude of jostling opinions about things. I'm afraid that, while I do experience an ickiness factor at the things you mention, I am not convinced that this leads to a good categorisation of moral behaviours.

Having said all that, though, I think it would be quite fun to be able to grow meat without a brain in it. That way we can all eat a nice big steak without any moral worries at all.

ps. I was going to try to introduce an ethical point about abortion as a parallel to killing the male chicks, but I figured that might be too controversial. So, how about this: why is it wrong to kill the male chicks as soon as they hatch? Do it quickly with a minimum of suffering, should be ok. Are we supposing that hens feel distress because their chicks have vanished?

Right, that's enough from me.

515. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197099 by Sargeist on June 21, 2008 at 4:47 am

Hi Fanusi. I am always interested in hearing other opinions, even if I don't feel that I have a well defined enough set of attitudes of my own. Or, rather, when I am speaking extemporaneously I tend towards some sort of "personality, but this seems to leave me when I am trying to formulate something nicely thought through. Ho hum.

Anyway, I'd like to only comment on one part of your response, which I hope you will not mind me doing. You wrote:

The idea that 'all life is sacred' sounds very nice, but it ignores that life is, always and invariably, in a state of perpetual war with other life.

516. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #197071 by Sargeist on June 21, 2008 at 2:58 am

I hope you won't mind my hijacking the topic slightly with a philosophical/ethical/musing-al question about vegetarianism and the concept of right and wrong. (I'll try to be brief.)

In order for humans to live they need a variety of things, and one of these is vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is pretty much only available from animal products (e.g. meat, milk, eggs - although apparently we can't get it out of the eggs if we eat them) and we will die if we do not get enough of the vitamin.

So, omnivores and vegetarians who eat eggs or drink milk are generally ok, but vegans need to eat fortified foods or take supplements.

Now, I'm not arguing against the use of synthetically produced vitamins etc. My point is this: if someone is a vegan, say, on moral grounds that are to do with the entire concept of killing animals for food, and not just a protest against farming practices, then they are only able to exist because we are able to synthesise those essential chemicals that they require. So, if we were not able to do the said synthesis, would this convert the act of eating animals' flesh from an immoral to a moral act?

I don't want people to think I am "anti-vegan" or anything. I am just rather interested in the way that actions "become" moral or immoral through their interaction with other circumstances. I find that people often make assumptions about the objective wrongness of something, and I must confess to being a bit of a relativist.

517. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196883 by Sargeist on June 20, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I knew religion was taking the piss. But *drinking* it?

518. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196872 by Sargeist on June 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I must say, this really is being an interesting thread. I've learned how the Native Americans were deliberately given smallpox; except not. I've learned that America does and does not invade or act aggressively towards anyone. I've learned how there is slavery of many and no kinds in Arab countries. And I've learned how we both are and are not trying to keep oil prices high, and how we certainly are simultaneously definitely and definitely not doing anything to control people's oil.

I think I spot an obvious parallel here with the theist's view of "evidence".

All good fun, though. And now I am intrigued about the hotness of TeraBrat.

519. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186272 by Sargeist on May 30, 2008 at 3:20 am

mmurray, re the Daily Mail article,

An interesting way of combining fundamentalist Islam with modern attitudes to women's rights, I think!

Edit: And, of course, it would be so so so easy to test whether this woman really is sensitive, by just saying: "Are you feeling ok? I've just realised that I've left my phone on" (when you actually haven't - or vice versa)

520. Repulsive but right

Comment #184521 by Sargeist on May 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Although I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, and hence know what he is like, I do find myself continually amazed each time I see him on television. Each time he appears I find myself reminded of how polite he is, how carefully he thinks about things, and how unlike the devil incarnate he is.

If people do really find him to be strident and shrill and offensive then I cannot but think that they are either upset at having their foundations rocked, or else they are just rather stupid. So, when Dawkins says, "On matters on which there is evidence, your opinions do not matter", all that those sorts of people hear is, "Your opinions don't matter" which then morphs itself into, "You should not be allowed to have those opinions." Hence the number of times we see theists claiming that we want to prevent them from having their beliefs of being able to express them.

521. In God's Name

Comment #183832 by Sargeist on May 23, 2008 at 1:03 am

The difficulty is that they are independent. Are you going to try and impose a standard curriculum on independent schools? I suspect that would be pretty hard to do.

522. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177970 by Sargeist on May 10, 2008 at 4:49 am

Verylee:

Indeed, just what I was going to write. I can't help feeling that these things (in this case, a churchman saying that non-believers should be respected {apparently}) are reported so loudly for the basic reason that we simply *don't* expect those people to respect anyone.

A paradox of the "impartial" news is, I think, that one can actually see exactly where partiality lies by examining those things that are deemed newsworthy.

523. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177044 by Sargeist on May 8, 2008 at 1:48 pm

It's not just me, thank goodness: This is just pages and pages of meaninglessness.

524. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171528 by Sargeist on April 28, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Tomorrow's Daily Mail headline:

"Monkeys stealing hard working fishermen's jobs"

525. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170838 by Sargeist on April 28, 2008 at 5:01 am

Could someone enlighten me as to when the idea that God is perfectly good arose? It seems that in the OT God is simply a very powerful being that wants to do whatever he wants (and he really is a "he"), and there is no real concept of being good or bad, just powerful and desirous of being obeyed. Very much like the Greek pantheon, even down to not knowing everything (such as not knowing Adam and Eve would disobey, and not knowing where Adam was in the garden one day.)

526. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170835 by Sargeist on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 am

Talking to a Catholic yesterday, I was struck by the thought that there might not actually be *anything* that could occur that would make her question whether her god was perfectly good or not. It doesn't matter if it's earthquakes, tsunamis or plane crashes, nothing rocked her belief that god was basically wonderful.

When I mentioned the Big Flood she said: "Well, he did promise never to do that again". And when I mentioned the recent tsunami she said, "Well, not as many were killed that time."

527. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170062 by Sargeist on April 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

I'm afraid that I find the idea of a t-shirt with "women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" quite amusing. But if I saw someone wearing it I would no doubt assume it was some kind of postmodern savage irony.

"Worship Satan, Not Jesus": now *that's* something I can definitely support!! Black metal PROVES that the Devil has all the best tunes.

528. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170061 by Sargeist on April 27, 2008 at 10:22 am

Bonzai,

Bonobos *and* dolphins? What terrible sites are you visiting?

I'm sorry to say that I've only just caught up again with the various posts made since I left last night. Phew! It's hard work this site.

I'm still not sure how I would have behaved if I had had to make a decision on the t-shirt. Perhaps this is why I am not a judge. I think, though, that I would most likely have told him he was not permitted. And then say back and laughed at the whiny Christians who objected.

This thread has made me realise once again, though, that the people who visit this site have a large variety of interesting things to say. I learn a great deal almost every time I come here (to catch up on 3 million comments...)

529. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169658 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 1:35 pm

MaxD,

I am always rather conflicted here. I agree with your post almost entirely, but then I find myself agreeing with the converse positions of some others! Perhaps this is a good thing - it avoids me being overly dogmatic!

I am bothered by laws against hate speech. I'm afraid I cannot remember who said it (I've not got a lot of time right now to go searching) but it was said earlier that the people who are responsible for actions should be the people who carry out those actions. If I stand on a stage and tell people to go and kill their parents, and no one listens to me, am I guilty of incitement? What if the Beatles at the height of their fame were to do the same? I contend that a number of parents would have wound up dead as a direct result. If both I and the Beatles *want* to cause people to kill their parents, but only one of us has the power, does that mean only those with the power are to be held accountable?

(sorry, may be a really crap example - I hope you get my gist)

530. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169655 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 1:31 pm

newskin,

I think it has been said here on a number of occasions by the lovely, learned populace of this site (grovel grovel) that it is a fun idea to have society move on collectively towards a greater tolerance and understanding of each other, to try to achieve the maximum amount of happiness for everyone.. and then to watch with glee as the goddists have to *really* mangle their ancient teachings to get them to fit in.

531. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169652 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 1:29 pm

PGFM: sorry, I was being a little exaggerated (but only a little, I do still go around filled with hate for much of the population - the ones with the hoodies, stupidly low jeans, and loud mobiles mostly) in my earlier post. It may not have been the funniest thing, I admit. :-/

532. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169647 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 1:25 pm

I've been trying to work out how I think I would have reacted to the student's t-shirt. On the one hand, as people have said, it might be useful to let everyone see what sort of man this student is. On the other, offending people in that fashion cannot be something to encourage.

On balance, and because children don't have any sense, and because they still need to be taught how to behave, and because we eventually lose the chance to control them when they leave school... because of all these things, I think that I have to come down on the side of those who would not have permitted him to wear it.

But... I am still torn! One thing the story didn't make clear was whether the Day of Silence was something that all the students were expected to join in with. Would the not joining in signal an attitude similar to the wearing of the controversial t-shirt? I never got involved in Comic Relief at work or college because I didn't want people telling me who I should prefer to give any charitable donations to. And sometimes it is just nice to go against the flow, to assert the illusion of free will a little.

533. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169642 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Hmmmmmm,

If I may, I'd like to tease out a little of what my reaction is to the sentence:

You make some good points within that area, but it diminishes the importance of the problem to lump it in with, for instance, "being skinny".

534. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169634 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I'm thinking about some of the points that have been raised. I am obviously biased in my views about certain types of bullying. I know what the feeling is like to have people surround you calling you names. Is this worse than my ancestors being enslaved? Well, I've not much of an idea about who my ancestors were or what happened to them. Maybe if I had been told that I need to find out about them in order to have more self worth things would be different. As it is, I am left in adulthood with a lingering paranoia that anyone who looks my way could well be thinking that I look "funny" in some way. But we are all the sum of our experiences, and it's meaningless to wonder if the person I am now would like to be the person I would be if I had been treated differently.

The idea of the hate behind the abuse is an interesting one. I don't see that we can infer a motive from the abuse, only from what people say about why they are doing it. I do indeed doubt that any skinny, red-haired or unathletic teens were actually hated. But, conversely, I doubt that all teens who are called "gay" are being hated. Or is it okay to call someone gay so long as they are heterosexual?

This is one of those topics like the abortion one - it's a minefield to dare to wander into. At least no one has yet said: "You don't know what it's like to be X, Y, Z, so you have no right to comment."

535. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169622 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Peace:

I do, of course, think that racist comments are appalling, but I'm afraid that I shall have to be unpopular in my opinion here and stick to my guns! (well, until I get persuaded of my errors, no doubt)

Anyway, I was in Tesco last Friday and an Indian/Pakistani guy went past me using sign language to the friend he was with. A white kid near to me thought it was funny to say "Paki" to him as he went past. The humour, it seems, coming from the fact that the abusee would not have heard him. Now, this got my blood boiling so much that I had to leave the shop for fear of getting my head smashed in after confronting said abusive cretin. It occurs to me that I might not have been quite so filled with rage if the abuse had been, say, of a ginger-haired person. I don't know, of course. But this could just be a social conditioning.

536. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169612 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Steve: No of course not. But I did get called a "runt" quite a lot, which did get me very upset, and did lead to a (not very long lived, I admit) period of self harm. So, I'm afraid that I don't see your point at all.

Is it, basically, that the *history* of the abuse makes any current re-enactments more serious? So, it's not the mere abuse itself, but what we feel it might become? I suppose I can sympathise with this. But my being called a runt would never have got any interest from the police. And I just thought, this is something I shall have to get over. Maybe this has been good for me: I eventually managed to realise that those people's opinions didn't matter. But this could have been because I didn't have society on my side.

537. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169603 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 11:46 am

When I was at school, I got bullied verbally and physically quite a lot for being:
bad at sport
tall and skinny
having bad glasses
bad hair
being top of my classes
and it always pissed me off that people could insult the lanky guy, and the red haired guy, and the fat guy, but god help you if you made any comments about a person's colour. Ooh, no, cos *that* would be really naughty. If the bullying still affects me to this day, as it no doubt has done for many many others, why should it be less serious than racism? Is it because I could have become better at sport, put on some weight, got a better haircut and tried hard to do less well in exams? Should I change so as to avoid their ridicule? Or is the difference simply one of degree? No one was murdered or persecuted on a large scale just because they were tall and red haired, so we don't have to watch out for a ginger pogrom?

Actually, I am no doubt answering my own question: it must be that, deep down, we know that we humans would mostly love to do away with certain types of people. And we're afraid of that. So we have to try really hard to avoid the temptation.

Similarly, there have been lots of comical parodies of George W Bush's facial expressions, comparing him to a chimpanzee. If Obama were to become president and turn out to be an imbecile, too, would we see similar humour being employed?

538. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169561 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 9:53 am

teratornis:

Great post. I enjoyed it immensely.

I do tend to shake my head in wonderment, though, at the (apparent) lack of any media interest in things such as peak oil, food price increases, house price increases (in the UK) and the absurd levels of credit being doled out to people.

"Shall we put these on the front page? Nah, there's some woman dropped a sausage roll and was fined for it, that's got *much* more human interest..."

Cretins.

539. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169407 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 2:39 am

First Cradle of Filth, now Marduk! This is indeed a great occasion for lovers of black metal everywhere.

(even though CoF are not 'true' black metal, and are certainly not 'kvlt')

Marduk have a pretty good song on one of their albums titled "Christraping Black Metal".

540. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168994 by Sargeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I've had to skip 12 pages because of my not being able to keep up, but I am saddened to see that someone is still here. Someone earlier suggested that we should stop responding, and I am now seeing the wisdom of this suggestion.

541. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168971 by Sargeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm

3760. Comment #167797 by The Reverend Dark:

I have noticed a trend in your posts, much in the way that a Rhinocerous would notice if you rammed an arm ups its arse and then gave the St Crispin Day speach in sign language.

542. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168961 by Sargeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:34 pm

j.mills:

"Jesus is a c*nt" is a t-shirt for the (so-called) black metal band Cradle of Filth.

I've seen another t-shirt around with "Jesus loves you... but I think you're a c*nt" on it.

I like that one, but I think I'd rather like a nice simple "There is no god" slogan.

543. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167563 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

Cartomancer:

Seeing as we're vaguely off-topic for a mo: I agree with you entirely.

544. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167561 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:01 am

irate,

I admit it, I am scared by even the *thought* of touching your dog collar.

545. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167541 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:41 am

Woo! I've just noticed that I was used as an example of atheist violence!

This is superb! Have at you, Diacanu and irate - you've been angry for longer than me, and it was me he mentioned! Hurrah! More exclamation marks! Me, me, me! Oh, how my life now has meaning!

Bollocks.

546. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167366 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

I'm with Avzen on this one. I appreciate that there is limited time in the school year to teach *everything* one might want to, but religion is such a prevalent thing that it seems odd to me that people can't be taught about it.

Is it perhaps the gung ho attitudes of the religious in the USA that would make it unworkable? By this I mean that a more secular environment might find it more straightforward to discuss a variety of topics without having to sneeze the word "bullshit!" every time a religion other than Christianity, say, was mentioned.

547. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166437 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:46 am

I have not arise.
You will not arised.
I cannot arisen.
I should not have wished to be arisicated.
Who is he who seeks the house of Marcus Licus?

548. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166405 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:15 am

This really pisses me off. None of it makes the blindest bit of sense!

Remnant: *what* is it that I am going to get on judgement day for my nonbelief in god?

549. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166360 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 7:37 am

There are so many irritatingly smug bloody ways that the goddists can get out of any problems we-who-are-not-entirely-cretinous raise about the flood:

Oh the animals were vegetarians on the ark
Oh, God made it so they didn't need as much food
Oh, God made it so that they didn't need their usual habitats

So many excuses, really, that I am left wondering why God didn't just make all those nasty horrible humans just vanish into thin air. Why all this dicking about with floods, and pillars of salt, and volcanic blah.

One of the main troubles with the god-botherers is that, I think, they actually *lack* imagination. Their God is just a human with the power turned up a bit. cf. my usual comments about the banality of miracles. What's that Jesus? Liquid into liquid again?! Woopee-fucking-do.

550. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166355 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 7:34 am

gr8:

There was a letter to one or other of the broadsheets a while back (sorry, cannot recall exactly) that said, essentially, that creationism makes one viable prediction: that the geographic distribution of land animals should be rotationally symmetric about Mount Ararat.