Comments by Goldy

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

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

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

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

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

1353. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1354. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

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

1355. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

There, that's better ;-)

1356. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1357. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1358. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hehehehe - just glancing through the Conservapedia commandments...

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

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

1359. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

So good, I have to do it again

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

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

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

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

1360. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

ctrkev

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

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

Edit

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

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

1361. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1362. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

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

1363. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

Really?

1364. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

1365. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

Loke, I admire your courage.

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

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

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

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

1366. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

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

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

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

1367. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1368. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

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

1369. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1370. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

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

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

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

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

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

1371. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

Maybe it went something like this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1372. Lying for Jesus?

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

The Troll has been taken care of.

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

1373. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

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

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

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

1374. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1375. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1376. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1377. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1378. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1379. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

1380. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1381. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1382. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

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

1383. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1384. Lying for Jesus?

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

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

1385. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195106 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Or, put another way, suppose that you are an alien that finds the Voyager probe putting around in interstellar space. What would satisfy you as proof that it was designed?

Compare it to natural phenomena and objects.
Edit - And didn't they put a record in one of the Voyagers? Once aliens work out how that plays, they'll probably work things out... ;-)
Edit the second - http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html
Unlike God, we have left a myriad of clues.
As for AMC Gremlin, again, there is a plaque within it stating that it was made by AMC. It will also have patent numbers. It also has a direct correlation to other cars, all designed. It has also been recorded as having been designed by...probably a committee. Again, unlike the "designer" there are just too many easily accessible clues and records to follow. Our "designer" apparently was shy and hid all clues too well...

1386. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195023 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Easy. If you admit defeat, in that Evolution theory is dead, you are left with only one choice. A designer/creator. It's that simple. The end. What don't you understand about this?

But earlier you said

Spontaneous life? Are you for real? May be spontaneous life in which one then can grow wings and fly away. Talk about fairy tales.

So, which one is it?

Jesus can fill this void. Just trust in him. There has been something done to you in the past that is not enabling you to trust and have faith in a loving and all powerful God.

Well, if spontaneous life can't be "for real" then Genesis is wrong so that must negate some of God's, errr, goddiness. If that bit is wrong, then the Gospels might also be a bit suspect….maybe Jesus isn't actually real… Can I trust you?

Now Behe, he's the new kid on the block. Very impressive. You all should read his work.

Aah, yes, the one that has

Official Disclaimer
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

See it for yourself at http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
You are an atheist taking the piss, aren't you? Sly dog ;-)

Do animals have free will?
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

As it is, I shall call your bluff. Admit it, you are taking the piss :-)

1387. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194600 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 3:33 am

Keith

RtG has really got nothing going for him at all, poor man: he's deluded, educationally subnormal, dim and rude

He's taking the piss, I am sure. He's as non believing as I am. There are too many cliches and no one who really believes can forget his Bible. No way. If he is for real, I worry about the next election there...

1388. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194571 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 1:04 am

This guy's American, I think.

The way he has forgotten his Bible, I think he's taking the piss. He's as atheist as I am - if not more so. I mean, c'mon, look at what he wrote - no one can be that stupid...or forgetful! Even txtpiper takes a back seat...which, coming to think of it, he (txty) never contributes at the same time....hmmmm... *strokes chin, mental clogs clank...*

1389. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194569 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 12:59 am

And spontaneous life makes a case? I did not know that the insane asylum gives access to the internet.

Apparently it does. I believe it is time for your pills.

1390. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194567 by Goldy on June 17, 2008 at 12:57 am

Spontaneous life? Are you for real? May be spontaneous life in which one then can grow wings and fly away. Talk about fairy tales.

So you deny the following:-

1: 11 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth:" and it was so.
1: 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1: 20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
1: 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1: 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."
1: 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1: 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:" and it was so.
1: 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1: 26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
1: 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
1: 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
1: 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1: 30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat:" and it was so.

And so Jesus is all a crock of shit too?
My, my - the religious prick is a hypocrite too.

1391. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194476 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Incidentally, what is it with fundamentalist Christians and homosexuality?

Maybe it's a left over fragment of the Hellenisation of the Middle East - they reacted badly to it and it carried down over the ages in their poisonous books. Or something. Certainly it wasn't as big a deal in Europe's dawn...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_greece

1392. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194475 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Eeeevery sperm is sacred, eeevery sperm is great...if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate!
:-D

1393. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194471 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 9:27 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly

Seems we are a vector....and they share our ranges too. Bastards.

1394. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194470 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 9:25 pm

I was just going to add that as an edit - you type way too fast for me!
Sure about the flies? I'm guessing they must be...but the little buggers look all alike to me...

1395. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194464 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 9:15 pm

No other animal species lives in the range of environments that we do, from mountains to deserts, from rain forests to ice.

Bloody flies do. And mosquitoes - trust me on that!

1396. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194458 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 8:51 pm

And all the animals have free will too?
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

1397. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194449 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Reading about Lesbian men, I have to say I met quite a few. Nice holiday, it was. I believe some are taking women lesbians to court or something
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2008/06/12/lesbians-v-lesbians-in-athens/
Total red herring, please disregard ;-)

1398. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194426 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Don't worry about RtG's Brit jokes - nothing we haven't said ourselves. Besides, it's been done on the Simpsons already...
I, for one, shall wash away the distate by drinking a few fine ales brewed in Blighty :-)
PS, I have very good teeth too. Dentist was very complimentary. Surprised too when i told him I last went to the dentist about a decade ago. No fillings needed then or now - only a wisdom tooth or two extracted - not sure what hurt more - that or his bill!

1399. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194408 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Hmmm, God loves homosexuals but hates their acts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.

He made them that way because he liked the suffering, I guess - shitty god.

1400. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194402 by Goldy on June 16, 2008 at 5:47 pm

What do you get when 12 Britain's come together?

12 islands the size of Britain do? Or does it have to be specifically Britain. Hmmm, how does one replicate an island?
And all the animals have free will too?
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm