51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182465 by gr8hands on May 20, 2008 at 7:34 am

Did anyone notice that txpiper didn't respond to the demonstration that his statement about self-organization was wrong?

I mean, really! What bad manners. Is a simple "the evidence shows that I was wrong" too much to ask?

Of course, since most of his erroneous conclusions are based on that wrong concept, this would be a major stumbling block for him, causing his precariously stacked mumbo-jumbo to fall down around him. That has to be scary for a person so emotionally committed to one particular view.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182302 by gr8hands on May 19, 2008 at 4:06 pm

txpiper obviously didn't read what I suggested, or else he'd know that his claim

Organization is not an automatic thing with biological organisms

is ignorance on his part.

Did Life Begin In Ice? from Discover Magazine's February 2008 issue shows that the chemicals always organized themselves into more complex structures without anyone's assistance.

Is he unaware that water molecules always organize themselves into more complex structures when they get colder? Has he never heard of ice or snow?

53. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182292 by gr8hands on May 19, 2008 at 3:40 pm

MaxD, you are wasting your breath on ASMarques, who has shown himself incapable of proving even the simplest of his assertions, and to be a hypocrite (as a quick review of our interchange clearly demonstrates for anyone who is not mentally challenged).

He shows his ignorance by appearing to be convinced the Holocaust was only about jews -- ignoring how many jehovah's witnesses were murdered (he can ask them to provide proof, which they have no problem supplying); the homosexuals (his so-called information is grossly in error); the Gypsies, the handicapped and a number of other groups.

He is not worth your time. Censor him? No, he doesn't deserve that. Simply ignore him.

54. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182235 by gr8hands on May 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Substitute the word "god" with "astrology" and you could get just about the same results, have the same article (except Shermer firmly denies astrology), and only shows how erroneous the article's conclusions are.

55. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #180960 by gr8hands on May 16, 2008 at 7:56 am

ASMarques, since you have already been demonstrated to fail at the very simple task of providing a list of the countries you think make up the "western countries" -- and failed at the task of providing evidence of your claim of "most" -- you have shown yourself to have no credibility.

Further, you falsely claim I am changing the subject, and go on to change the subject yourself (which is how I would define hypocrisy) by blathering on about holes in a roof.

Stick to the one issue when corresponding with me.

Until you are able to be accurate in the simple question that I've posed and you've dodged, there is no logical reason to believe that you are going to be accurate in anything you write.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180605 by gr8hands on May 15, 2008 at 9:58 am

txpiper, you are confused about the dog/cat artificial selection issue.

All dogs evolved from wolves, this has been demonstrated genetically. Through careful breeding (artificial selection) many characteristics have been brought to bear which are more complex than exist in the wolf population.

There are dogs which are bred to be larger than wolves, faster than wolves, with keener eyesight than wolves, have more stamina than wolves, have greater coordination than wolves, have better oxygen absorption in their blood than wolves, can withstand colder temperatures than wolves, are more trainable than wolves, and a whole host of other improvements -- and it didn't take but a few thousand years for this to happen.

Imagine what our dog breeds will be like in a few thousand more years -- but that's nothing to compare with what a few million or billion years has been able to accomplish without human intervention.

57. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #180588 by gr8hands on May 15, 2008 at 8:55 am

ASMarques, you seem confused about what the word "most" means -- it means more than half. So, to be accurate, you have to define what the whole amount of something is, then demonstrate that whatever you're claiming to be "most" is more than half of that whole.

You failed to do that.

Simple math isn't a matter of interpretation.

Then you use the terms "extremely harsh" (nobody forced you to use the phrase, you chose it yourself), but what you supplied doesn't even come close to that in any reasonable definition. It is moot, because you didn't supply the first part -- defining the whole.

Again, you claim

Read again: "most western countries ban 'Holocaust' denial by specifically legislating that 'anti-semitic' speech is illegal, and then punishing 'Holocaust' denial as a form of 'anti-semitic' speech."

But without listing the specific countries you define as western countries, and then listing specific legislation against anti-semitic speech and specific examples in each of those countries of punishing Holocaust denial in those circumstances -- you have failed to substantiate your claim.

You seem confused by this process of verification of claims -- which, I suppose, is why you're a Holocaust denier in the first place.

And, it is you trying to change the subject by asking the question about holes in the roof. That has nothing to do with our interchange about laws.

58. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #180126 by gr8hands on May 14, 2008 at 8:45 am

ASMarques, so by listing 10 countries, are you thereby stating that there are only 19 countries in the western world? It would have to be that in order for them to have a majority, and validating your claim that "most" of them have extremely harsh fines and prison sentences.

Of the ones you provided:
Austria's fine is not extremely harsh
Belgium's fine is not extremely harsh
Switzerland's fine is not extremely harsh
Germany doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
France didn't list what the punishments are, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh or even having a prison sentence at all
Slovakia doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
Poland doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
Italy doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
Spain, as you acknowledge, doesn't even have anti-denial legislation. Regardless of what they actually do, it is not evidence of your claim.

Only Luxembourg fits the description. So, for your claim to be valid, there can only be 1-1/2 countries in the western world for a majority of them to have extremely harsh fines and prison sentences -- based on the evidence you provided.

It appears you have not proven your point in this instance. You didn't even make the effort to list the countries you personally feel make up the western world (which is the easiest thing for you to do -- not a lot of research required for you to write out what is your opinion)

Of course, for it to even matter were your claim to be true, the laws would have to actually be enforced -- we have laws against spitting here in the U.S., but they're not ever enforced.

Your claim about Shermer being profoundly ignorant on any subject he's written about is not founded in fact. A review on vho.org is not evidence. In light of your poor performance with the answer to my question, I think you need a refresher on what evidence is, but I don't have the time to devote to training you.

I, like many people who read this forum, have read Holocaust denial literature -- it was extremely unpersuasive. I do not speak for others, but in my opinion, and that of every court and legitimate historical society which has expressed an opinion on the subject, it is slipshod research, faulty history, often purposely mistranslated, often deliberate fraud, and laughable due to poor scholarship.

Do not make the mistake of presuming that many of us do not understand a host of languages and have read the documents in their original, from all over Europe. Or that we have not visited the sites ourselves. Or that we do not have close friends who were impacted by their relatives being killed. There are even survivors who read this forum.

No, ASMarques, Holocaust denial is as valid as moon landing denial, as grounded in evidence as the resurrection of jesus, as believable as alien abduction.

59. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #179501 by gr8hands on May 13, 2008 at 10:41 am

ASMarques, you wrote

Do you by any chance ignore that "denial of the Holocaust" is banned in most of the western world? I don't mean it in a symbolic way. I mean extremely harsh fines and prison sentences.

Would you please provide the evidence of which countries in the western world ban Holocaust denial?

For that, of course, you'd have to list which countries you believe make up the "western world" and then identify (with authoritative links) which have bans, their fines and prison sentences -- so that we can evaluate whether they are "extremely harsh" or even exist at all in any way other than anecdotally, and whether they make up a majority (to validate your claim of "most").

60. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #179494 by gr8hands on May 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

ASMarques, please read Why People Believe Weird Things by Dr. Michael Shermer, specifically pages 188 through 241 which is Chapter 13 "Who says the Holocaust never happened, and why do they say it?" and Chapter 14 "How we know the Holocaust happened".

61. God seekers go public

Comment #179461 by gr8hands on May 13, 2008 at 9:32 am

Diacanu, "they" have more than dirty tricks . . . They have:
lies
rumors
hallucinations
wishes
massive amounts of willful ignorance
stupidity
herd response
apathy of the masses
"tradition"
sloppy science
boredom of things not immediately/easily understood
inertia of the unschooled
home schooling to prevent real education
weekly indoctrination in their thought camps
extreme peer pressure from family and community
tons of funding from the bush administration
years of "do not question us" mentality fostered in the followers
"anything is moral if we believe god would want us to do it" mindset
the ends (theocracy) justifies the means (see all above)
demonizing of science, reason and rationality as heresy/blasphemy
squelching of curiosity
denial of facts
promotion of faith over reality

There are many others, of course, but certainly more than mere dirty tricks.

62. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172232 by gr8hands on April 29, 2008 at 11:19 am

No, lbq, lots of people have. Just not most journalists or theists.

63. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172224 by gr8hands on April 29, 2008 at 11:05 am

Ty_Webb,
Allegations are not evidence.
Heresay is not evidence.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
Personal revelation is not evidence.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Rumors are not evidence.
Wild speculation is not evidence.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Illogical conclusions are not evidence.
Disproved statements are not evidence.
Logical fallacies are not evidence.
Poorly designed/executed experiments are not evidence.
Experiments with inconclusive results are not evidence.
Experiments that are not and cannot be duplicated by others are not evidence.
Dreams are not evidence.
Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence.
Experiments whose methodology is not open for scrutiny are not evidence.
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence.
Information that is only knowable by a privileged few is not evidence.
Information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.
Information that cannot be verified is not evidence.
Information that is ambiguous is not evidence.

So, your comment that the bible is is a form of evidence is incorrect. It is merely a collection of "unsubstantiated claims". It is fiction.

64. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172220 by gr8hands on April 29, 2008 at 11:02 am

ysntw -- put down your cross and follow us.

65. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172211 by gr8hands on April 29, 2008 at 10:49 am

"pioneered the practice" would indicate McKnight is unaware of the existence of suicide bombers prior to the Tamil Tigers. Wow, how ignorant!

Similarly when confronted with scholarship concerning the important influence religion played in the development of scientific method in both the Islamic world and the Christian West,

I've never seen evidence in the "scholarship" which I've read on this topic from theists. Most of them start their history of science with the Romans/Greeks -- forgetting centuries of science from other cultures prior to that, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Hardly good scholarship.

How would executing theists "promote" atheism? How would doing something irrational "promote" rationality?

"politics often plays a large role in much strife commonly attributed to religion" -- because religion is almost always political. You have a difficult time keeping religious people from infecting the political process.

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

Comment #170211 by gr8hands on April 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm

riandouglas wrote:

Ahh, see there is where you're mistaken. Gay's are not men.

I certainly hope you were joking with your post, so I won't comment on it.

As I've written before:
I own nothing pink.
I own no Barbara Streisand, Bette Midler, Judy Garland or Madonna recordings.
I know nothing about fashion.
I know nothing about hair styles.
I hate 'product' slimy goop in my hair.
I don't go to raves.
I don't do ecstacy.
I'm not into three-ways or fourgies or an open relationship (now that I'm in a monogamous relationship).
I don't use the phrase 'girlfriend' when talking about a man.
I don't do drag.
I don't love to shop.
I'm not effeminate or swishy.
I don't self-identify as queer, but do self-identify as a fag (because straight people think the word holds power over us, which it doesn't).
I don't have problems with those gays who do the above (except the drug/alcohol abuse).
I just love sex with another man, loving another man, building a life with another man.

So, for every stereotype one might put out, I can put a name for someone that I know who is exactly like that -- but it isn't a guarantee by any stretch that the label will cover very many people in the gay community.

That being said, Bonzai, I wasn't talking about the continuum of gay experience being binary. But the importance about examples from other mammals/birds/etc. is simply about whether homosexuality exists there or not. The only way anyone (not you) can claim it isn't natural is by demonstrating that there are no examples of it in nature -- however there is overwhelming evidence that it does occur (hence the term binary).

67. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #170075 by gr8hands on April 27, 2008 at 10:40 am

Well, contrary to some other military people's experience with their branch of the service, when I was in basic training (Air Force), the first chapel service was mandatory. We had another mandatory briefing by the base chaplain. And prayers were said at various times which were also mandatory -- clearly in violation with policy, clearly christian, and clearly without regard to those of no faith.

As a side note, the first statement we learned in military history was "America is not a first strike country". That was the first true/false question on the two written tests about military history. I suppose our current president, who was AWOL, a drunk and drug user, clearly forgot that (his vice president, who was a draft dodger, never learned it).

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

Comment #170059 by gr8hands on April 27, 2008 at 10:21 am

I think if you look at Bonobos for clues of homosexuality you will get some very different data than say,from looking at goats and birds.

Clues? Wouldn't the males having sex with males be a clue? Or females with females?

If someone would like to provide evidence of ANY mammal species that has NEVER had ANY observation of homosexual behavior, I'd be willing to concede that it might not be universal. However, I am not aware of any mammal species (or bird species) where this has never been observed.

Clues? It's really a binary situation -- either there is homosexual behavior or not.

The t-shirt is patently offensive. If it said "women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, not in the voting booth" or "women be submissive to your husband, not having a job outside the home" or "worship Satan, not jesus" -- I am certain those t-shirts would raise the ire of those around the community.

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168899 by gr8hands on April 25, 2008 at 12:43 pm

I saw an article I thought germane to this should-have-been-terminated discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080425/lf_nm_life/usa_harvard_dc

David Rockefeller donated $100 Million to Harvard. This would be included in the charitable giving report because Harvard is a 501(c)(3), but I don't think you would consider it a charitable organization.

Donations like this skew the numbers a bit, don't you think?

Better to check with the Chronicle of Philanthropy or Giving USA for somewhat better numbers, although they frequently make the same mistake.

However, they are clear that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gives out much more than any religious foundation. The Red Cross certainly does more good internationally than any particular religious group I can easily think of . . . And don't forget that they do so without forcing any religion down anyone's throat.

Of course, there's a billion non-religious people out there: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Yes, total dollars going to charity from atheists outweighs total dollars going to charity from theists.

Oops, gotta get back to class.

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168615 by gr8hands on April 25, 2008 at 8:31 am

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.

71. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168608 by gr8hands on April 25, 2008 at 8:28 am

Maybe Remnant is a master baker, or a master debater.

Once again he demonstrates a kind of mental retardation by misusing "evolve" in a non-reproductive setting. I guess his education was based on biblical teachings, so he can be forgiven.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168087 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Gotta catch a train home, class is over for today.

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168086 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm

annabanana, I can only go by what he claims, which was wrong. It is up to him to alter his claims to reflect his mistake (or you to kindly give him an out).

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168082 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm

And Bob Hoskins.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168067 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Remnant, Advanced Placement scores are 1 to 5, not letter grades, so your children could not get the "A" you have claimed. Perhaps you did not understand the grading.

They're done on a bell curve, so they're competing against each other -- not against an objective standard.

They may very well be geniuses -- but AP scores won't provide evidence of that. And each test is only for one particular course. It isn't comprehensive, like the SAT (which everyone knows has been dumbed down significantly).

I went to Coeur d'Alene Senior High School. I'm not afraid to tell you my son went to Waynesville High School. I'm proud to tell you he's currently at West Point.

So let's recap: you're a liar, a hypocrite, delusional, and a coward. I could go on, but that would appear snarky.

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168040 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Remnant, the rest of my question was about who did the rating -- and the whole title of the designation.

You see, the "top 50 high schools in America for teen pregnancies" would be different from "top 50 high schools in America for drama clubs".

And if the rating was by the Flat Earth Society . . . well, that's not far from any theist designation.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168028 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Remnant -- you are delusional. I don't have an avatar.

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168015 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Quetzalcoatl, you're ignoring Duffman's Power of being Super-Hot!

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168008 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm

No, Remnant, there are no other theories that are not religious. Why lie about this?

I noticed you didn't supply the proof that your children go to one of the 50 top high schools in America.

What label should we apply to someone who makes unsubstantiated claims and then refuses to provide evidence?

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167995 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Bonzai, both my hands are great, thus gr8hands. (but I know you're not being snarky, just typing quickly)

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167990 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Duffman looks like several gay porn stars I've enjoyed. I don't mean that as an insult, but as a compliment.

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167982 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm

SRWB -- no, not hypothetical. The evidence is overwhelming.

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167975 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Tyler Durden, don't forget about the tight S&M costumes he wore with his young ward. If that isn't homoerotic (like the myth of jesus and the apostles) . . .

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167964 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Remnant, "the school my children attend is listed as one of the top 50 high schools in America" by whom? Some religious group? They would hardly be qualified to judge that.

You've made another unsubstantiated claim. Provide the evidence, or recant.

Are you somehow claiming that the school your children goes to is not a "public indoctrination center"?

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167945 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Remnant doesn't appear to realize that he's being a hypocrite to praise "the public indoctrination centers" when he's bragging about his children, but insulting them every other time.

He also doesn't know what actually happens in class, only what his children tell him -- which could be lies to placate him. Without actual evidence, he can't know for sure. Since he's a liar and a hypocrite, there's the possibility his offspring could be as well.

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167930 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Star Spangled Eagle, you see that Steve Zara and I agree about the reasonableness of time loops, but if you were to try and pin us down on the details, we disagree about whether that time is linear or not, etc. It hasn't stopped us from being friends on different continents, however.

Imagine if theists could be that civil!

Tyler Durden, it appears that your prayers to Qwertyaszx the Almighty were answered, and your prayers to jehovah were ignored. What ritual of praise to Qwertyaszx will you do now?

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167904 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Star Spangled Eagle, you forgot to mention that we're both gay.

I don't think that has any bearing, though.

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167901 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Here's a good link, just as an FYI:

http://www.allconferences.com/Science/

Time loops make more sense to me than "timeless framework independent of our spacetime from which our spacetime arose - some framework which itself had no time dimension." But that may just be a personal preference. I just haven't been persuaded by the scientists yet.

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167882 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Steve Zara, we're like a Bears fan and a Steelers fan. Each of us will tout the superiority of our players, particularly when the new draft picks are out. And we don't have a problem having a few beers together.

Our egos are not so fragile that a disagreement will crush us. And we're intellectually honest enough to at least look at the other's links out of sheer curiosity.

Theists, by and large, refuse to consider doing that.

I enjoy our interchanges.

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167877 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 11:53 am

Steve Zara, when you write

The believe it came from a timeless state of pre-existing laws.

This states there was something before the beginning, or before the Big Bang, which is saying there is no beginning only in different words.

Your reference to "The Ekpyrotic model" is the old one first postulated. That one has been modified, although it goes by a different name to show it has changed -- your use of it now is somewhat misleading as I was not referencing that older model.

Linde's bubble theory also has no ultimate beginning, only past regression of previous bubbles.

No, you'll need to supply me with more examples of physicists who believe there was a beginning to the universe, and declare that before that was nothing.

But, I'm fine with our cordial relationship even when we disagree about things! That's a real friendship.

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167841 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 11:21 am

Bonzai, thanks for the clarification. One of the things I respect about Steve Zara (and you) is that he doesn't make claims in utter ignorance. I do my best not to either. EDIT: If I do, I am certain someone will let me know!

Many of us are extremely well educated, with an insatiable thirst for knowledge in a wide variety of subjects, and the intellectual capacity to research, receive training, retain and comprehend what we learn. I would safely say that most of us on this site are not limited to only one area of expertise or knowledge.

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167832 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 11:12 am

Bonzai, I hope your post #3777 wasn't directed towards me. I would have to inform you that I have studied the math, worked through many (but certainly not all) of the textbooks, and read a LOT of papers -- as well as attended a few conferences, met with physicists, corresponded with them, etc.

No, I'm certain you meant it more towards someone else. Say, someone who has been spouting utter nonsense, like Remnant.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167817 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 11:02 am

Steve Zara, you and I have disagreed about this topic before, and I do not see any evidence to change my stance. I still claim it is not "a distinctly minority opinion of how the big bang arose."

Perhaps you should attend a conference on this subject as part of your process of "collecting material." (I have, and you'd find it fascinating!!) I don't mean that in a snarky way, but as a way of actually discussing the issue with physicists, observing their reactions to ideas presented (do they nod in agreement, shake their heads in disagreement, laugh in incredulity, walk out muttering "idiot", or write notes saying "genius"...).

You'll get real results on the opinions, rather than taking some subset of papers that you happen to find on the Internet, based off searches you - as a non-physicist - would make, which might not be all-inclusive or even representative.

I admit it is more arduous following my suggestion, but you're more likely to get an accurate reading on what is accepted, fringe, mainstream, discredited, whatever. Merely collecting articles won't do that adequately. But I'm guessing you already know that.

Remnant -- notice that I did that without damning Steve to hell, or accusing him of some sin, or requiring him to pray/confess, or have faith of any kind. It doesn't require special dispensation by the holy spirit, or agreeing with debunked fiction poorly written 2000 years ago.

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167805 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 10:44 am

No, Bonzai, any belief in god existing without evidence is unreasonable, by definition: not by virtue of reason.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167802 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 10:41 am

Remnant -- since you're making a comment on science as opposed to your fictional god/bible, I'll comment.

Had you actually followed the link I provided, you would see that Professor Steinhardt is not merely spouting his personal thoughts, but the results of the continuum of beliefs from researchers on the topic of Big Bang, etc. Nor is he saying "I am right, and all others are wrong" as you have been saying concerning religion (which is incredibly stupid and violates christian beliefs about not being arrogant).

By not following my link, you are a hypocrite to make any comments about it.

Steve Zara has gone to that link before (which makes it a little surprising that he would think it's just the one physicist's opinion -- perhaps he forgot what was there and went on memory of the name), so he can make comments about it.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167793 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 10:34 am

Steve Zara, I don't merely pick one physicist and base anything on that, but Steinhardt is one of the leading ones, very eloquent, and has spent quite some time providing easy-to-understand materials out where anyone can look them over. He answers emails. He will speak with you over the phone.

Not so with most physicists. If they are available, they tend to speak in technical terms only other physicists can understand.

Steinhardt, however, goes out of his way to make the concepts readily understandable to laypeople.

He's thorough, well researched, and he also happens to be very persuasive within the scientific community. Most physicists won't outright say he's wrong.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167749 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 9:55 am

No such thing as "beginning" of the universe.

http://www.feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167744 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 9:53 am

al-rawandi, take a chill pill. A little italics shouldn't provoke such irritation -- particularly when someone might make a post, and then have to (or choose to) leave.

Better to suggest to the webmaster that the posting software be updated to provide better HTML or WYSIWYG capabilities.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167716 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 9:28 am

Exodus 20:13

Thou shalt not kill

Just one chapter later, 21:12

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Then 21:15-17

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Wow! Contradictions so close together! How is that possible? Oh wait, that's because this is a work of fiction.

Of course, since there is no historical evidence that moses existed outside of the bible and the torah (even after extensive research by jewish archeologists for centuries), this is moot and silly.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167679 by gr8hands on April 24, 2008 at 9:03 am

epeeist, #2 has already been answered as "yes", proving complete idiocy.