Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


801. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161267 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:49 am

Comment #161263 by Artful_Dodger


Steve, "external to the universe" does not mean that he does not interact with the universe. Obviously, creation means interaction.
And if he interacts then methodological interaction should give us the ability to investigate that interaction. Or is your god a bit like Sagan's dragon?

Of course you ca take the tack that so many of you have taken and simply airbrush Jesus Christ out of human history, and press on regardless of it.
No we don't. We ask for evidence. I suspect a fair number of people here would accept an historical Jesus. Where we would take issue is with the claim that he was the "son of god". All the supposed evidence for this comes via writings of cult members, hardly neutral.

802. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161249 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #161238 by BillySands

1073: Pope Gregory VII prohibited Jews from holding office in Christian Europe.
But those are all Catholics, not real Christians.

Perhaps you ought to have linked to this - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

803. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161245 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger

So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense.

Artful - you keep blathering on about "God" as though there were only one. Hubris on your part.

I have been to Greece and seen the temples. Until you disprove the existence of Zeus and Apollo could I ask you to not bring your presuppositions into the arguments you make.

804. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161242 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #161232 by irate_atheist


Epeeist - Could you wheel out your lemmata?

Certainly can - it is part of the "Fleabytes" thread in which Artful_dodger strangely avoids answering how to tell the difference between literal and metaphorical parts of the bible.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page38#135651

Because of the missing posts this doesn't seem to work.

Lemma 1: The Universe was created
Lemma 2: The creator of the universe is an omnipotent, omniscient being
Lemma 3: This being, having created the universe continues to play a part in the development of the universe and all that is in it
Lemma 4: This being is specifically the deity of a particular sect of people living in one small section of one small planet circling around particular star out of 1011 others in one galaxy out of 1.5*1011 others.
Lemma 5:All of this is documented in a book written approximately 2000 years ago

All the lemmas need to be demonstrated in turn. Once this has been done then you may actually have some claim to the truth of your religion.

805. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161233 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #161229 by Steve Zara

Steve - I think you have just been wootered.

806. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161226 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #161224 by Quetzalcoatl


I agree with you for the most part, but some of the theist posters we get are honest and try to explain their positions properly without resorting to hit-and-run tactics. Brother John and Mark Taunton are excellent examples of this.
Agreed, to my shame I used a universal rather than existential quantifier.

807. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161223 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

Comment #161218 by Artful_Dodger


As for the metaphorical / literal issue, I have answered that question, tho seemingly not to your satisfaction, which I would probably not do however long I spent on it.
No you haven't. You have made a few comments on specific pieces of the bible.

What you have not done is to provide some kind of general mechanism for saying what is literal and what is metaphor. Nor have you provided any argument as to how you gain the authority to make statements as to what is literal and what is metaphorical.

808. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161219 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #161217 by Quetzalcoatl


I'd be surprised if he returns. He seems to be doing hit and run attacks on any thread with "Richard Dawkins" in the title at the moment.
I would be very surprised if I ever got an answer. However, I am not really doing it for his benefit. Like Jon_sociologists valiant attempts with wooter I am doing it to show the underlying insincerity and dishonesty of the theist posters we get and the lack of argument that they can muster.

809. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161214 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger


Interesting discussion. I just hope that Dawkins will be equally willing to engage in a similar way with fellow-scientists who are not atheists.
The question is whether he would actually get answers from them. It seems to be that whenever someone asks a theist a hard question they cut and run.

Perhaps you could finally get around to actually telling us something about how one can tell the difference between what is literal and what is metaphorical in the bible. This and some extended questions can be found in the post below.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page27#160334

I hope you aren't too busy, or have other things to do.

810. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161172 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #161161 by clearthinker

You stated that my post above was odious, lying and nasty.
No he didn't. He actually said
has been shown on this site to hold and promote particularly odious, lying and nasty ideas.
In other words, nothing about your particular post.

As for your post. Your first paragraph is ingenuous. There are numerous expositions of what actually happened with the people who were supposedly "expelled". Did you actually do any background research on this before you wrote it?

The supposed atheism/Nazism causality. Hitler was religious, his affiliation with orthodox Christianity is debatable. That he misused ideas from Darwin and Nietzsche is true, but this reflects on Hitler and not on Darwin or Nietzsche. That he extended the anti-Semitism that had been a part of German society since at least the time of Martin Luther ("The Jews and their Lies") is also true. That the collapse of German society can be attributed to the treaty of Versailles and world economic conditions is also a valid argument.

Does this give any substance to the claim that atheism is causally implicated in the rise of Nazism. Neither you or Ben Stein has come any where demonstrating this. I would probably go further and say that neither he nor you have even demonstrated even correlation between the two.

811. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161162 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #161160 by Grumpy Max

I hate Shakespeare - I think he SUCKED and I didn't learn a single thing by reading him. Even the movies suck.
I know this is meant to be an oasis of free thought, but...STONE THE HERETIC!
The OP isn't quite as eloquent as Tolstoy, but has very much the same opinion.

Now I know Tolstoy is dead, but do you want to stone him as well?

812. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161142 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Comment #161047 by MaxD


I think part of the reason for this is that two sports dominate here in the states and they occupy all the major talent
We have the same thing here, with football (soccer) swamping virtually everything else.

But this is not dissimilar to having large supermarkets and brand name stores dominating and homogenising all our towns and a small number of parties dominating both national and local government.
Also did David Robertson or Artful ever offer a satisfactory answer to the metaphor questions?
You need to ask?

813. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160882 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #160825 by al-rawandi


The guy will come back, once all the important issues have been forgotten, then we will be at square one again. I doubt he will be broadening anything save my definition of annoying.
Personally I take my mother's attitude. To paraphrase her, everyone brings joy to the site, some when they arrive, some when they leave.

814. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160821 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Comment #160816 by navyjake95


Dude...just read your article, and I must say - you're clearly "unnerved" about something. It's been my experience (for 50 years), that people who behave like you did (in your article), do so because they're deeply afraid of Jesus.
Why should Dude be afraid of a possibly non-existent preacher from an iron age Semitic tribe?

I'll pray for you - In spite of hatred and name-calling. God loves you dude!
To quote another poster from this site - "Well, I'll think of you the next time I am having a shit, the effect will be the same"

Does anyone here know of a poster called "Dude"?

815. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160775 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 11:36 am

Comment #160763 by al-rawandi


My father was a quite good fencer at University here in the US. I don't know if that is comparable to English fencing.
I am being generic here, so don't take it as trying to characterise your father. Fencing in the States used to be crap, but like a lot of other countries they have bought in East European coaches as the Soviet Union collapsed and their game has improved enormously, they are now winning gold medals at world level. This is especially true for women's sabre where a Russian called Nazlymov is in charge.

Britain is gradually improving, largely as the impact of Hungarian and Polish coaches gradually works through. One of the guys I coach with is a Hungarian who had 4th and 5th places in the Olympics, he recently had one of his pupils take bronze at the world under-17 championships.

To switch back to topic (boring I know), do you thing Laphroaigman will come back? If so do you want to hazard a guess as to how he wants to broaden our horizons?

816. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160758 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #160664 by laphroaigman

Personally I don't find your scary capitals or bad French to be threatening at all.

I came here to a) learn where you all are coming from, b) to posit some questions that just might get some of you thinking in broader terms, and c) to try and be reasonable..
Always glad to learn something new and to have my horizons broadened. What do you want to talk about?

I can do the differences in styles in modern French, Italian and Hungarian fencing coaching methods, music in Tudor England (I don't do the history of the period, for that you will need a professional historian, someone like Cartomancer), somewhat outdated quantum mechanics from when I did my Ph.D, I know an amount about evolution (though again someone like maxD or Steve Zara would be better) but can't do it in detail, enough about the philosophy of science to know that Intelligent Design isn't science (though you would want a professional philosopher like MPhil, Quine or Spinoza if you want more depth). I don't really do theology, you would want someone who actually did that at University, Al-Rawandi would be a good choice. I am not sure what qualifications Billy Sands or the Rev. Shayne Dark have in the subject but they seem to do it pretty well.

Its a time back but I could do the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea, I used to teach the shore based Yachtsman Offshore course.

So where do you want to go?

817. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160650 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #160614 by Quetzalcoatl

Has anyone noticed that we've been getting a lot of trolls on the site recently? I wonder what the cause is.
Well the last time it happened was just before the publication of Vox Day's book. Is there something going to happen shortly that is similar to this?

Personally, if people are coming here from some Ben Stein/Discovery Institute fine site then I wonder whether we will get the chance of a Christian blowjob again.

818. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160638 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 8:50 am

Comment #160607 by al-rawandi

Type "A" personality, combined with ADD, and the details of the English language are completely lost.
Fine, now I know I won't bother you again about it.
What is the prescribed punishment for this transgression? Force me to read old tabloid articles on Princess Dianna?
I'm afraid you are going to have to do an extended Paula, read all the flea books and write a review of them...

819. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160590 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 8:06 am

Comment #160581 by al-rawandi


Because in the American athletic world, using someone's last name is a means of appreciation and a sign of acceptance.
That wasn't the problem.

Almost inevitably you refer to her as "Brenway" not "Benway" and in my anal-retentive British way it just niggles me.

820. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160583 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #160572 by thisisme


I'm glad someone above found my small input 'valuable' anyway.
Don't do what a lot of theists do, and Al-Rawandi hints at. Namely disappearing because "I am busy now" when difficult questions occur. Your posts are spread out and fairly fragmentary. As such you are going to be vulnerable, as Kardashovel has noted, to the pile-on effect.

Could I suggest that you take some time out, read the referencs that Al-Rawandi and I have given you, formulate a coherent version of your views and come back with that. It should make discussion much more productive.

821. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160567 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 7:49 am

Comment #160554 by al-rawandi

Brenway,
Just because reading it gives me a little frisson of irritation - is there any particular reason why you misspell Dr. Benway's name?
Notice thisisme is quite "busy" at the moment, but shall vouchsafe us some valuable wisdom... in abridged fashion.
As well as your reference MPhil pointed me at J.L. Mackie's "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong". I am finding it stimulating. Why is it that the theists who come here and argue about ethics don't seem to have read any Aristotle, Kant or Spinoza? Or even McIntyre

822. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160531 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #160510 by laphroaigman


Too funny... I make a point that the Dawkins apologists are always resorting to ad-hominem and/or personal attacks, and then my very first post is responded to with things like:

You come to the site, make an assertion that someone is a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest, talk about "atheist hordes", rant with SCARY CAPITALS and little coherence and then you wonder why people deride you?

Did you come here to have a reasonable discussion, or simply to engage in quarrel dialogue? If the former then look at Kardashovel's posts and the responses he gets. Personally though, I think you are really here to vent your apoplectic ire and besmirch the name of a good whisky.

823. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160516 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #160483 by thisisme


All we have is 'is' - as you say there's no real 'ahead' for evolution so what makes one view better than another?
It is a little difficult to get into this argument since all you have raised so far are problems.

You presumably have some kind of ethical basis to the way you act towards others. Tell us how you came to it and why then we may be able to have a more fruitful discussion.

824. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160506 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 7:03 am

Comment #160485 by Aquaria


Since...

Mozart's Requiem? Is that when it all went down the tubes for the delusionals?
I think you might be forgetting Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

There's also Bruckner's Tedeum if you like that sort of thing.

A fair amount of Messiaen is good and based in his Catholicism.

825. A New Flea

Comment #160381 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #160353 by PJG

I am waiting for a book that supports the notion that there are ALMOST certainly such things as fairies. I expect it would be just as convincing as this one.
Yes, these books do not make the case for a god (or gods). They make the case for their specific interpretation of a Christian god. How is it that they never consider the rational case for Zeus? Are they not implicitly assuming the non-existence of all other gods. To make their argument secure should they also not be proving the non-existence of all other deities?

In fact, are they not simply begging the question?

826. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160345 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 1:16 am

Comment #160118 by mmurray


At the risk of just repeating what others have said here is another example. As a fully committed Einsteinian should I believe I can behave in anyway I like because everything is relative?
I was never sure whether I was a Schrodingerist, Heisenbergian, Diracist or Feynmannist, it really depended on what notation I was using at the time.

Does that make me an indeterminist?

827. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160334 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 1:00 am

Comment #159983 by Quetzalcoatl

And to extend it in the same way we did with Artful Dodger (can anyone recall the answers he gave). How do you decide what is metaphor and what is literal, and how did you gain the authority to make that decision?
His answer essentially boiled down to "you just know". Then he had to leave because he was busy.
A pity really, because there is more to be explored.

Go back to the time of the Swedish crusade against the Finns and Laplanders and their conversion to Christianity. Why does their religion, which presumably they thought to be true, become myth and not metaphor?

This is also roughly the time that the legend of the grail started appearing, drawn from pre-Christian Celtic mythology. Is this myth, metaphor or simply fiction?

I would hazard a guess that the Noachic flood was thought to be literally true at this time. When the Epic of Gilgamesh is rediscovered with the story of the flood then why isn't the biblical story relegated to being a myth along with Utnapishtim? Why does it gain the status of metaphor? Why does it still retain this status even after significant evidence against a global flood is discovered?

And if it is metaphor, then why is it a better metaphor than the stories of Aesoop?

828. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159973 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Comment #159963 by MaxD

What issues are you prepared to let be consigned to metaphor, and what do you think must be true, literally for Christianity to matter more than say my copy of Lord of the Rings.
And to extend it in the same way we did with Artful Dodger (can anyone recall the answers he gave).

How do you decide what is metaphor and what is literal, and how did you gain the authority to make that decision?

829. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159967 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Comment #159956 by Dr Benway

Robertson never sees how he provokes a negative reaction with his insults.
I wonder how he talks to his parishioners?

830. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159905 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 11:34 am

Comment #159902 by Quetzalcoatl


"David A Robertson" is, I think, the real DR. Click on the "Other Comments By" if you don't believe me. They go back quite a way.
Now I am really baffled. Posts early in 2007 then a big gap until today. Was the id blocked, was it live and unused, being saved for a rainy day if other id's were blocked?

831. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159894 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #159889 by kaiserkriss


The probability that this character is "our" David, weaflee, clearthinker etc, is surely quite low.
Shudder, you mean there are two David Robertson's who are ministers in Dundee?

832. Fleabytes

Comment #159834 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 8:14 am

We seem to have someone posting as "David A Robertson" on the "Lying for Jesus" thread. Just as a matter of interest the registration details can be found at http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page22#159833

833. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159833 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 8:11 am

Registration page for David A Robertson

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:48 am
Last visited: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:16 pm

Registration page for clearthinker

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:49 am
Last visited: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:07 am

So is the "David A Robertson" a new id or a replacement id for something else?

834. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159810 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 7:31 am

Comment #159806 by David A Robertson


Sorry to butt in - I have no wish to intrude on the high standard of debate but I do feel that poor Styrer is getting himself worked up over nothing. I will reply and then leave you to continue your intellectual discussion..
So, given that this registration was made in December 2006, and assuming that clearthinker, the wee flea etc. are just synonyms then what are we to make of the claim made in the "Fleabytes" thread that the poster was banned from the site? Just an id that he had forgotten he had lying around?

It certainly looks the same kind of post that the likes of clearthinker would post. Designed not to inform, but to stir up a flamefest, suitable for quotemining at a later date.

Given that the poster claims to be a minister, you would have thought he would have had something better to do on the Sabbath.

835. Expelled Overview

Comment #159716 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 12:50 am

Comment #159715 by Jon_Sociologist

Can I get a hallelujah! Can I get an Amen! Thank you Jesus.
Ningizzadin, the talking serpent, Lord of the tree of life salutes you.

And he also says that Ben Stein is a total shit, just like Yahweh. Neither of them can produce anything of their own, they both have to rip stuff off other sources.

836. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159713 by epeeist on April 13, 2008 at 12:14 am

Comment #159579 by bigcanuck


Ben Stein is not trying to damage anything scientific. This is what I'm having a problem with. He quite distinctly states that since Darwinists have no answer for how life began, there is obviously large holes in their theory.

Comment #159620 by bigcanuck
I happen to have a BSc. in Zoology and doctorate.
You have qualifications in biology (where from?), you call evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" and you either don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution or are prepared to accept that Stein is dishonestly trying to conflate the two.

Something doesn't quite ring true I'm afraid.

837. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159513 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 11:31 am

We seem to have a fair people who are keen for us to reserve our judgement until after the film is released.

Interestingly enough most of these appear to have either joined the site very recently or not to exist. I wonder why this is?

838. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159369 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 3:22 am

Comment #159366 by Peacebeuponme


By "relgious leader" we mean people like the Pope or Rabbis, Bishops and Imams. They speak on behalf of their religous community and in accordance with whichever religious text they subscribe to. I can't see that there can be an atheist equivalent.
But they don't represent their religious community, they represent the particular deity they subscribe to. The religious community simply follows on.

We don't have this kind of split. If there was some kind of atheist organisation it would be more like a political party.

839. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159365 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #159281 by Koreman


Fine examples of Pavlov's operant conditioning in reality.
I didn't think Pavlov used operant conditioning. Wasn't that brought in later by the likes of Watson and Skinner?

840. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159349 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 2:18 am

Comment #159343 by tron22


Mr. Dawkins, if you're so smart
Strange isn't how the people who want to make an attack generally refuse to acknowledge RD's qualifications.

Because I am British and titles work slightly differently to the US I would call him Professor Dawkins. In the States I suspect it would be Dr. Dawkins.

"Mr. Dawkins" is simply rude and says more about you than it does about RD.

841. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159319 by epeeist on April 12, 2008 at 12:15 am

Comment #159312 by whatrutalkingabout

I tried to read this but it was so caustic. It seems like it is written by a completely bitter, crazy man.
So would you believe reviews by, say, the movie critic of Fox News? Or people from Scientific American?

Have a glance at http://www.expelledexposed.com/ to see some of the other reviews that have been made.

842. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158821 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 4:43 am

Comment #158818 by Logicel

D.ug I.n O.ffal wrote: You must ask yourself if you want a nerdy, hunched-shoulder, effminiate, squishy PhD male

Yeah, my brother-in-law, though he did all what what required to get his PhD, was denied the doctorate on the basis of his bulky, muscular, ripped 6' 2" bod.
Well I can't claim to be 6' 2", but they never said anything to me about puncturing people with 3' of steel when I took my Ph.D.

843. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158809 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 4:07 am

Comment #158801 by Paula Kirby

Not only do very few of our visiting Christians make any attempt whatsoever to present a positive case for Christianity at all
The problem is that if you are trying to explain galaxies or bacteria then you haven't got a whole lot of positive information in your armoury. The only thing you can really do is shout, stamp your foot.

844. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #158767 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #158720 by Steve Zara

We shouldn't rush to any conclusions. This is a highly speculative article, making a lot of assumptions.
Agreed. However, there is a difference between this conjecture and some of the things being put forward by the crowd of loony creationists we seem to have been infected with at the moment.

They are offering predictions and some possibility of testing them. As opposed to the loonies who seem to think you can just make stuff up and a back reference to the bible makes it true by caveat.

845. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158764 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 2:56 am

Comment #158759 by D.I. Ogenes


You dummies ought to log off from the Internet and start reading books from long ago.

For if you did, you would recognize how far fallen are the contemporary High Priests of the Church of Academia from the laws laid down by Francis Bacon as to the Scientific Method.
Bacon did well for his day, but of course David Hume showed that we are not justified in using induction to reason from repeated instances of which have experience to conclusions of which we have no experience.

That science uses hypothetico-deductive methods was largely accepted by the late 19th century and the view has been consolidated by philosophers of science in the 20th century.

Of course this is all rather new for you isn't it? I am surprised that you actually got beyond a single 2000 year old book.

846. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158745 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 2:09 am

Comment #158742 by irate_atheist


834. Comment #158731 by epeeist -

*Splutters*.

How could you even suggest such a thing?
Oh, I thought leaving it open at a page containing a Melanie Phillips article for the cat to use might be your sort of thing ;-)

847. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158731 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:43 am

Comment #158729 by Steve Zara

Comment #158724 by irate_atheist
But is it as hard to read?
Only if he uses the Daily Mail.

848. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158728 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #158722 by D.I. Ogenes


Apples far near the tree. I would love to meet your moms and dads to see what pieces of work they must be.
Well my mother and father are both dead. But I am sure you will be able to meet them in the afterlife.

Assuming that is there is an afterlife. And assuming you have enough karma to end up in the Elysium fields.

849. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158718 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:25 am

Come on guys - just ignore D.I.Ogenes. He isn't a real person. Someone has just hooked up a version of the post-modern generator to the posting mechanism.

I have seen more intelligent chatbots.

850. Expelled Overview

Comment #158713 by epeeist on April 11, 2008 at 1:22 am

Comment #158702 by Jon_Sociologist

You need to back it up with some question about how evolution explains the function of a tortoise's rectum or something.
Just came across this one on http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104906

Why do our maxillary sinuses drain at the top? As is pointed out there, it makes a fair amount of sense for a deer, but what designer in her right mind would use the same design in creatures walking upright.

I also like the quotation from Late_Cretaceous - 'Creationist " I did not even bother to read your post, becasue it is nothing more then a lot of evolutionist hand waving. I know for a fact that it is all a fallacy and that evolution is unscientific. If evolution really was valid science as you claim, then why can't your provide any proof to support it?"'

Says it all really.

More Pages: Previous | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 | Next