551. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170943 by epeeist on April 28, 2008 at 6:57 am

How is it that rates of depression, violent crimes, teenage pregnancies, and STI/STD's have risen dramatically since prayer was taken out of school?

Sigh, why is that people can't tell the difference between correlation and causality.

As is noted by Pastafarians - there is an extremely good correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and the increase in global warming.

552. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170934 by epeeist on April 28, 2008 at 6:40 am

Comment #170891 by el Heffe

The question being asked in the movie is where did the first cell come from. By moving the cell to another planet, he has not answered the question. It is clear that the cell is extremely complex, moreso than Darwin could have known. I am here looking for answers and RD didn't have them. By taking God off the table, clearly you all must have a more simple explanation as Steve has suggested.

I would suggest that you are making a number of mistakes here:

If you read what RD said about this then what apparently happened was that he was trying to give the best possibility for ID. This was edited somewhat in the film. And of course, as you note an alien designer is subject to regress.

The cell is complex and would not have been formed fully fledged in an "ultimate 747" incident. What would have almost certainly come first would have been simple replicating molecules. These could have been formed on an underlying substrate such as a zeolite clay or ice crystals.

This is currently the subject of research but nobody really knows at the moment. At this juncture the normal ID response is to invoke bifurcation, i.e. a designer, but this is logically invalid.

Pick the simplest explanation when you have several alternatives.

Parsimony is fine, and nobody who has heard of the Duhem-Quine thesis would have any problems with alternate hypotheses. However, this assumes that the multiple hypotheses have the same explanatory power. This is plainly untrue for ID.

Be prepared to give up a belief when a simpler one comes along, and there is evidence for it.

"Belief" perhaps isn't the right word. One should be prepared to give up a theory if it is falsified by a critical experiment or another theory comes along that is empirically stronger.

553. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170179 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #170160 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

What special reason has irate?

His own to impart, not ours to divulge.

554. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169967 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #169966 by Demotruk

Why have people told melissajoy to fuck off, or that she's a fucktard?

Let's just say that those of who know irate_atheist's circumstances allow us some additional understanding on this front.

555. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169945 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 5:34 am

Just before I go off to make some fishcakes for lunch (with home made bread) a (final) quick note on fencing.

I mostly coach sabre these days which has its own etiquette. Only hits above the waist count (below this is supposedly horse, which doesn't count) and one has to take turns. If I am attacking you then you have to make a successful defence before you get the chance to riposte.

Competitively I used to fence epee, no restrictions on target or when you can hit your opponent. I have no qualms about hitting people in the nether regions, nor when they have fallen over their shoe laces or stood on their sword, and to repeat something I say to the youngsters "There is no shame in beating your opponent 5-0."

556. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169932 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #169923 by Steve Zara

Not at all. You made a comment a while back about how I dealt with Vox Day, and it took me ages to finally see what you meant.

That would be a failing on my part as much as yours.

If I understand you right, does this mean that we keep them talking about religion?

As Quetz says (genuflecting several times in his direction) perhaps the areas where their beliefs inform their opinions is probably the most generic way of putting it, though I still think is probably too limited.

I and 5keptic pushed TTID in terms of evidence for ID, he wasn't able to supply any and retreated to invective (which a number of people responded to initially to give a fairly unpleasant display on both sides. The second time he did and was treated with derision was much more satisfactory).

Remnant was forced to defend on the terms of bible literalism and was unable to do so, with the subsequent regression into scripture quotations and threats.

Thisisme I think will be more interesting, an intellectual challenge more in MPhil's line. I am not sure about seeker_for_truth as yet.

557. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169920 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #169919 by Quetzalcoatl

You're a FENCER? I thought you were a milkman!

Q: What's an actuary?
A: A dead mathematician

Q: What's an accountant
A: A dead actuary

:-{)

558. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169916 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 4:49 am

Comment #169911 by Steve Zara

I may be being a bit dense.

That would be a first.

I think it is a matter of background as much as anything else. I happen to be a fencing coach (just to let you know, I am sure most of you are unaware of the fact) and these days the emphasis is on tactical-technical training. On top of that my job in IT is mainly concerned with usability an accessibility on systems used by a wide variety of people. Hence my emphasis on flexible strategies.

The insistence on making theists defend their own territory and not letting them simply whine about ours or escape into byways comes from more recent readings in informal logic and techniques in argumentation.

559. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169905 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #169904 by Brian English

Clearmind has knocked down evolution on the 'Interview with Dan Dennet' thread. I guess that's it guys.

Clearmind/Wooter is a wind-up. Look at the change in vocabulary and grammar from post to post.

What I wouldn't be sure of is whose side he is actually on and whether he is a sock-puppet. What is obvious is that his inanities are generally to the benefit of those arguing for atheism and evolution.

560. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169902 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 4:12 am

Since there are a significant number of people here who are regulars on the site I would like to ask a question. Have we learnt anything over the past few days about handling a variety of theists, from thisisme and seeker_of_truth to the likes of Remnant and TheTruthID? Admittedly the variety is small and they all arrived here following a particular media event, but I don't think they are atypical.

561. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169884 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #169768 by mesomodel

In case anyone had any doubts about txpiper:

http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1412;sa=showPosts

Wouldn't he be happier playing "World of Warcraft" or something similar?

562. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169865 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 2:21 am

Comment #169861 by MPhil

I think I just don't really care because I am usually very clear that I intend the reference to be to a fictional character.

Which is the point I was trying to make, but expressed in a much better way.

I do not tire of stating this, but once we have a definite description on the part of the theist, and that includes 'personhood, agency, being non-spatio-temporal, immutable, perfect, creator, intervener'etc we can disprove that.

We are working in two different ways here. How many theists that come here are capable of understanding your proofs? For those that can I would offer the proof.

For those that can't then the likelihood is that they will simply glaze over and reject it out of hand. In this case I would claim that my method is probably better.

It is just a matter of tactics as much as anything else. Would I discuss "The Flood" with someone like thisisme as a mechanism to show the ludicrousness of Christianity, almost certainly not. Would I discuss objective morality with Remnant, definitely not.

563. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169858 by epeeist on April 27, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #169841 by Quine

All the deities (envisioned by and in the image of the human mind) are mythical until demonstrated otherwise. That is what our demand for evidence is all about. This is why I avoid using the big "G" deity word when referring to the Christian deities

I don't know whether I got the habit from you or whether it was serendipity. Whichever it was I agree with you.

However, I tend to go slightly further referring to "your god" or Yahweh when referring to the Christian deity. As you intimate using "God" gives some validity to their claims, however the use of "god" still provides the validity but looks petty.

As for the "non-existence until proved otherwise" I am happy to agree with theists that I cannot disprove the existence of their god, I can only show the low probability. This way I can then point to the fact that they cannot disprove the existence of Zeus, Thor or Atum. This latter god is a good examplar by the way, he wanked the world into existence.

564. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169390 by epeeist on April 26, 2008 at 12:43 am

Well Remnant you didn't manage to defend your position very well did you. As I said I am away today and so won't be posting after this. There seem to be thee possible options with regards to a flood:

1. There was a local flood. This would seem reasonable. Where agricultural land isn't of high quality people live near or on flood plains which are more fertile. Of course you might get wet now and again. Occasionally there will be a bigger flood than usual that will pass into legend. I don't think any of us evil atheists would have any problem with this.
   
   Unfortunately for you this either means your god isn't particularly powerful or, more likely, it happened completely naturally. Neither case does anything for your claim of "bible inerrancy".
2. A global flood simply didn't happen. No evidence for it in the geology, archaelogy, fossil or genetic records, documentation from peoples as near as Egypt (for whom there is a complete dynastic record right through the time of the supposed flood).
   
   Now this would totally break your idea of the bible being inerrant. Given this what else are you going to have give up? Exodus, no evidence for that. Walls round Jericho, didn't have any. Jesus of Nazareth, no contemporary evidence for his existence and anyway Nazareth was only a graveyard at the time of this supposed Jesus and didn't have a synagogue.
3. The Flood did happen. Given the amount of evidence against it then the only way this could have been the case is by a miracle. Your god kills millions of people in an horrific way and then fixes the crime scene so it looks as though it didn't happen.
   
   Now this preserves your inerrant bible, but at what cost? Your god gives us the gift of reason but deliberately engages in a deception so we don't find out what he did. According to you god is the source of all morality but here we have him murdering, disturbing the scene of a crime and lying. Not exactly what I would call ethical behaviour.

As you can see I have given you three possible options, I haven't even committed the usual trick of bifurcation (evolution is false, therefore ID/creationism is true).

Feel free to discuss. But positive arguments are what we are looking for. The burden of proof is upon you to show that "The Flood" did happen.

565. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169144 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Fencing competition tomorrow, so I have to go.

Strange isn't that while these so called Christians can foam about "evilutionists" they are completely unable to defend their own position.

TTID is here rather than on the "Open Question" thread because he is incapable of answering 5keptics questions about ID. Remnant is prevaricating because he is unable to answer any questions about the flood.

I wish you joy of these two, but I rather think Dr. Benway's advice is probably apposite. Three strikes and they are out. The evasions speak for themselves.

566. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169102 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Comment #169090 by TheTruthID

I assume from your picture, that you still are recuperating from your stroke?

That's it? The best you can manage? No wonder you haven't been able to answer any questions.

Al - yeah, brain the size of a small peanut.

EDIT: And the attention span of a small goldfish.

567. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169075 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Comment #169066 by al-rawandi

Let's see the photo of your chiseled jaw and full head of hair. Come on post a pick, we can call it even then.

A little difficult I think. Didn't you know he won the local nose-picking contest.

Trouble is, his head caved in after it.

568. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169067 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comment #169055 by Bonzai

I think The TruthID's post to Elli is offensive, I just flagged it.

Me too.

Is this kind of hooligan behaviour representative of Christians?

When he was asked in the "Open Question" thread to give a single testable prediction for ID he was unable to. So instead he just started flinging one liner insults out. We told him we were knocking 10 points of his estimated IQ every time he failed to answer.

Al and I had a minor disagreement about the result. I estimated something about the level of a small beetle, but Al reckoned more like the level of the vegetation it was eating.

Al-Rawandi I was wrong, I owe you a pint.

569. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169048 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Comment #169035 by TheTruthID

Are you having as much fun as I am in showing how ignorant and stupid these people are?

I believe you owe 5keptic some answers to his questions. Why don't you wander back to the "Open Question" thread and see if he is there.

Nobody here is rising to your breathtaking inanities.

570. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169022 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Comment #168924 by MaxD

Its not that its the Yankees that I give you a look askance righton, its that it is baseball.

Quite right. As everyone knows the only team game that is worth watching is cricket.

Mind you it has been raining for most of the day here, so no play. I hope it doesn't go for too long, say 40 days and nights.

'Cos that would make it as long as The Flood

There seems to be an incredible echo in here. Almost as though the place was empty.

571. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168999 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Your little fantasy attempt at mocking God may make you feel cute but here is all you need to know about Noah, the flood, and the second coming.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

And so he murdered them. And this wasn't an itsy-bitsy number of people, like the ones that died in New Orleans.

Nor a mediocre number, like the ones that died in the Indonesian Tsunami.

This was hundreds of times that number.

And it wasn't a humane death either. Drowning isn't like they show you on the films. People panic, they thrash about in terror on the surface. Go ask the guys in your coastal rescue service if you don't believe me.

Think of it - millions of people dying. But it doesn't matter because Noah was saved.

And we can't react to it because it was god's will.

572. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168801 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 11:13 am

Comment #168775 by Diacanu

What is this weird religious obsession with "profanity"?

One of the books I have just found in rooting around the boxes we haven't unpacked yet is "The Horn Book" by Gershon Legman (Great title by a well named author). He discusses some of Robert Burns more earthy songs and poetry.

Burns had to sit on a stool at the front of the church for writing them.

573. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168745 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #168735 by Remnant

Check the numbers, studies have shown that religious people give far more to charity than secular people.

Are your church and any associated groups registered as charities for tax purposes?

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

Comment #168738 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 10:25 am

My best three t-shirts

1. One my daughter bought me which says "The older I get, the better I was"
One I got from a competition I took a British squad to in Monaco. I had to think hard when they offered the trip to me, but my patriotism won out in the end
One that I got from another competition in Godollo in Hungary. I got stopped by a security guard in Orlando who was obviously suspicious that it said something that wasn't quite nice (It actually said "Cadet Sabre Tournament in Hungarian)

575. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168723 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 10:12 am

Comment #168711 by riandouglas

The talk of children and specifically baking a cake puts me in mind of a woman, given the traditional gender roles as promoted by the bible.

Just watch yourself or I will be sending the bodyguards round.

I have bread to make on Sunday, along with a chicken pie for lunch.

Would there be gender stereotyping in the fundamentalist sounding family that Remnant appears to be a part of? Given the talk of "indoctrination centres" would s/he/it be home schooling the children?

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

Comment #168714 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #168705 by seeker_of_truth

When it comes to the predispositions of this debate, religious ideology is a strong influence, therefore making bias a substantial obstacle.

Take out the "religious" and I would agree. Your other two are non-controversial.

As MPhil would confirm, all observation is theory-laden. One that my daughter beats me about the head with periodically are gender assumptions (there is a nice paper by Kathleen Okruhlik called "Gender and the Biological Sciences" that is worth reading).

We have further problems in things like theory choice and the demarcation between science and non-science.

But the thing that science has that helps (I wouldn't claim 100% efficacy) is feedback and error elimination. It happens in other subjects too, but it is more apparent in science.

We don't assume truth, all theories are provisional and subject to falsification or improvement.

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

Comment #168707 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 9:53 am

Comment #168698 by Dr Benway

Interesting. Languages have evolved into separate species over time.

Too late http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page25#168157

578. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168704 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 9:49 am

Comment #168697 by mesomodel

I'd recommend the sport of foot-(in-the-mouth)-ball. Whether it is the norteamericano version can be left open for interpretation.

Whereas I would recommend beating over the head with a three foot piece of steel.

579. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168682 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #168679 by alan baylis

Not much of an advert for religiousity was he?

Never heard of negative advertising?

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

Comment #168678 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 9:28 am

Comment #168628 by seeker_of_truth

Would you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?

Let me try and give you an example. One of the things that is current in physics is string theory (I would personally question whether theory is the correct word to use here, but that is another matter). It has been the subject of criticism by, amongst other people Lee Smolin.

Are these criticisms worth paying attention to? My answer would be yes.

If I, as a former physicist working in quantum mechanics at the molecular level, made criticisms of string theory would my opinions be worth listening to. Almost certainly not.

So no, I certainly wouldn't limit the search for critical experiments on a theory to those working in the field. But I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the opinions of those who didn't have a good grounding in the subject.

Have a look at the list of Nobel prize winners (on the science side). Try a comparison of the numbers who got a prize for working in the then current paradigm and those who generated whole new paradigms.

581. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168647 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #168615 by gr8hands

Since too much time has been wasted on Remnant's rants, as he is just another liar for jesus, I'd say this thread can be concluded. I, for one, will stop viewing it.

Agreed.

However, I think this has been much more successful in showing how to deal with these people than the "Open Letter" thread. TTID essentially just threw out loaded statements and watched people react. It really wasn't very pretty.

This has been a lot calmer and Remnant has not been use the standard fundie tactic of whining about the problems of atheism/evolution/moral values and watching us trying to defend the position (De Sousa does this in a masterly fashion).

Instead he was tackled on his own ground and was shown to be completely inept in defending it. Whenever he tried to escape he was brought back to the subject.

582. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168642 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:50 am

Comment #168618 by MaxD

Generously we might call this hyperbolic, honestly we say, outright, blatant falsehood. I am not even a historian, and I would point you to classical greek philosophy and democracy, and then I would suggest you look at the secular enlightenment.

Like a lot of other things the Christians appropriated a lot of this. Augustine used material from the neo-Platonists (Plotinus) and the scholastics based a lot of their ideas on Aristotle. Cartomancer would be a better person to give detail though.

583. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168632 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #168594 by Remnant

You lack of reasoning skills never cease to amaze me. I have to make an honest observation.

[snip large ad hominem paragraph]

First of all, you are comparing the action of a divine God to human atheists. God as our Creator is supreme and owes us nothing. We are blessed that He even created us and gave us His beautiful creation.

So essentially we are property that he can dispose of whenever he feels like it.

Do you have a census of the population that supports your mental speculations on the number of deaths?

I used estimates from the US census bureau, this gives roughly 20 million humans worldwide in 2000 BC. You don't think I just made them up do you? Let's assume that it is 90% inaccurate and there were only 2 million. This makes god a killer of only 99.9996% of the human population.

Finally, a simple math lesson. John ate three of his ten apples. Sue ate 50 of her 100 apples. Who ate the greatest percentage of their apples? Who ate the most apples in real numbers? and, who had the most apples left?

After "The Flood" the world supposedly had 8 people left. After WWII it there were about 2 billion left.

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

Comment #168598 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #168591 by 5keptical

Just to clarify, are you agreeing with with my post, or are you saying it is another example of how not to deal with the IDiots? If the latter, why so?

If you look back (assuming you can bear it) you will find that I was essentially posing the same questions with the same result. So, not surprisingly I think your pushing the onus on to him is the right thing to do.

What seemed to happen here was that TTID managed to push some buttons and people began reacting. As a result he got all he wanted.

Tactically he played a blinder.

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

Comment #168586 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:14 am

Seeker - how much do you know about the philosophy of science?

To expand on Steve Zara's point. ID is not a theory because there is no evidence for it. At best it is a conjecture.

It is a pity that MPhil isn't here, since he does this better than me (the pitiful excuse of having to go to a wedding).

According to Kuhn theories have to be accurate, both internally consistent and with other related theories, broad in scope, simple and fruitful in its potential for other research programmes.

Popper would add testability and falsifiability to this.

586. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168572 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #168569 by Remnant

If you want to compare atrocities between true Christians and atheists like Mao, Stalin, and dozens of other atheists I could name, you will be embarrassed.

Remnant - you believe the flood happened. Your god killed 99.99996% of the human population. In the WWII the axis powers killed under 3% of the worlds population.

So guess who the biggest murderer.

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

Comment #168568 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:57 am

Comment #168524 by 5keptical

This thread should be preserved to illustrate the tactics of the IDiots and how not to deal with them.

As should your post.

If you have a glance at the "Lying for Jesus" thread there is still an element of quarrel dialogue, but it is much calmer. The major reason as far as I can see is that we are tackling Remnant on his own turf, rather than letting him trample on ours.

He has been shown to be incapable of defending his own position (creationism of some kind) and is now at the stage of stamping his foot, issuing ad hominems and threatening people with eternal damnation.

But people are not responding, nor have they responded when he tried evasions, shifting the burden of proof or making dialogue shifts. When he does try to switch subjects people are bringing him back in line.

I am not sure what seeker_of_truth is doing here, but the debate FAQ that he pointed us to is an extremely good resource.

588. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168551 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #168547 by The Reverend Dark

You find the same story (and earlier) in Babylonian myth (Utnapishtim)

Where we also find Ningizzida, the talking serpent, Lord of the tree of life, who snaffles eternal life when Gilgamesh isn't paying attention.

589. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168541 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #168529 by MaxD

My daughter has been on about fencing for awhile actually. But try finding a fencing club in my neck of the woods and you will begin to see the problem!

It is a problem with any small sport. Fortunately around us we have an extremely good professional Hungarian coach - he gets into a number of local primary schools:

http://www.sallekiss.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=74

I appear in this for 1 hit!

EDIT: Lefties do well, as much as anything because of the statistics I think. They are used to fencing right handers, but the opposite isn't true.

The interesting thing to watch is when two lefties fence each other. They tend not to have a clue what to do.

The people who tend to do best are those who have a dominant eye on the opposite side to their dominant hand.

590. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168509 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:16 am

Comment #168492 by MaxD

Epeeist, just watched the first vid you sent.
What was the white light at the top of the column signifying? Fouls?

Hit off the metal jacket.

A coloured light indicates a valid hit, a white light an invalid one. If there are lights on each side lit then the referee has to sort out who had priority.

Excellent. I don't know anything about what is going on but the foot work is really quite amazing to watch.

Full marks! Most people don't realise that fencing is a leg sport.

These days the idea is to use the footwork to get your opponent to commit to an action which you have foreseen.

591. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168494 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:09 am

Well we have had the whine about science and evolution in particular, we have had the scripture quotations. Looks like the last post is verging on threats.

Which just leaves No. 10.

EDIT: Forgot the argumentum ad Stalinum

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

Comment #168483 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:06 am

The one argument against it is that it doesn't really fit with the "Be Who You Are" theme for the day.

Other than that, let him wear it. However, the converse applies. Anyone wearing a t-shirt from the organisation in my previous post should not be penalised in any way.

593. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168476 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:01 am

Comment #168473 by Bonzai

So he is not going to give us an answer.

Which is exactly what happened with TTID.

Quite happy to whine about the problems with evolution with stuff that he can cut and paste from AiG.

Totally incapable of defending his own position.

594. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168470 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #168455 by Remnant

False premise, our Creator God gave us the laws of nature

Aren't you making a presupposition here:

1. You haven't established the universe was created
2. You haven't established there was a creator
3. You haven't established that this putative creator still interferes in the world
4. You haven't established that this creator is actually the god of a set of cattle-sacrificing primitives in one part of a small planet, circling round a star amongst 100 billion others in 150 billion galaxies
5. You haven't established that all of this was written down in 2000 year old book

Until you do all of that I am afraid writing "Creator God" is just hubris on your part.

595. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168449 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comment #168434 by Frankus1122

I think this outlines very succinctly the problem we have with Remnant. He has stated that the biblical truth will trump man's truth no matter what the evidence shows.

I was going to leave it for a while to see if he actually came back to me, but it doesn't look as though he will.

The only way out for him as far as I can see is to claim a miracle. But if he claims a miracle then it is a pretty pathetic one. Why didn't god just make humans vanish. As I said in http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page80#168296

why did he have to kill 99.99996% of the world's population by drowning? Furthermore, why does he then appear to have hidden the fact that he did it, was it remorse, shame, sheer bloody-mindedness?

Assuming that Remnant's god gave us the gift of reason surely he would have realised that we would attempt to find out actually whether it happened. That being so, why would an omni-benevolent god deceive us in this way?

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

Comment #168428 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:24 am

So would it be OK to wear this?

http://www.atheists-online.com/store.asp?shop=01800#1

597. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168424 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #168418 by Steve Zara

Yikes. I assume "blood" should be in quotes?

Well we do have quite a turnover in beginners :-{)

I should have put an "originally" in there somewhere.

You will not the minor alteration to the emoticons I am using by the way.

598. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168419 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #168413 by Remnant

I must inform you also, that in midst of all of your self-aggrandizement, you made a another fatal logical error, that being an appeal to authority, self-authority.

I don't think Dr. Zara (Ph.D Biology) did actually commit this. And if you want to be pedantic, then you should refer to it as appeal to improper authority.

Do you want to respond to my post at some time pointing out how weak your conjecture of a global flood is?

599. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168414 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #168400 by MaxD

You may find this interesting as you are pirate like sword fighter and all. This was the weapon art I used to do. (I'm currently teaching it to my daughter!)

Not my style, but quite interesting.

I have given links to three videos, one for foil, one for epee and one for sabre. You may have to go a couple of minutes in to avoid the spiel at the start.

Foil and epee are pointy sticks. Foil was meant as training for using a sword to kill people. If you notice they are wearing a metallised jacket that defines the target area, the trunk of the body. It also has the concept of priority, if I am attacking you then you must make a defensive action before you get the priority.

Epee is a duelling weapon, fenced to first blood. The target area is the whole of the body and there are no priorities. If two hits land within a certain amount of time then it is counted as a score for both sides (a coup des deux veuves).

Sabre is mainly an edge weapon, though you can use the point. Only the upper body counts, since it was originally a cavalry weapon the below the waist the horse gets in the way. It has the same idea of priority as foil.

The idea of priorities and the size of the target area are the major things that influence the way each weapon is fenced.

Don't know how sporty your daughter is, but if she ever decided to go into sport fencing the women's sabre is the weapon to go for. The States do extremely well and have had significant successes at world championship level.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2765904229499246733&q=fencing world&total=224&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=4&hl=en-GB
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3260269398588152912
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457&q=fencing world&total=224&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=1&hl=en-GB

600. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168386 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 5:29 am

Comment #168381 by Bonzai

No, it is not sufficient. You need F = ma in addition to the force law.

Fair enough. You can see where I am going with this I assume.

How did you do the power thingy

You need a couple of HTML tags, sub and sup. Enclose them in angle brackets the same way as the blockquotes. One of the small number of things that irritates me about this site is that it won't let you insert special symbols, or even plus or pound signs.