1351. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31504 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 3:07 am

JC

in spite of Billy & Quetz's not-so-subtle hint that I'm posting too much

I hope you dont think I was implying that. I was merely submitting to your superior knowledge of Ezekiel, and was hoping you may comment on the dating of it.

Billy

1352. T. rex tissue shows they are related to chickens

Comment #31503 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 3:02 am

For those who can access it, the original paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/277

1353. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31415 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Quetzalcoatl
That sounds very reasonable your godship. If she does not satisfy, can I exchange her for Carmen Electra - or is that just the old testament god that allows that? If that is acceptable, then please give me absolutely no sign at all :-)

Mark In my rush for some lunchtime sunshine, I may not have made my point clearly.
This is what Nebuchadrezzar's army will do to Tyre:
Ezekiel 26:12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

From Ezekiel 29:18 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth.

So, in the first verse, we can see that there is a prediction of plunder, but in the second, we are told that no reward was obtained. Basically the first verse is predicting the destruction of Tyre. The second shows this did not quite happen according to plan, and mirrors actual events. Because of the language, it is also clear that the second verse is written after the attack, we may presume that the first was written before (this dates the writing of this part of the book. I'll need to think more about the implications of this for ezekiel - maybe JC could save me some research here :-) ).
By the way, what would it take for you to accept JC's point about equivocation? I think he has demonstrated his point beyond any reasonable doubt.

1354. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31359 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 6:16 am

Hi Mark,
Sorry to be brief, I want to have my lunch in the sun. Egypt was not desolate because it's pharonic system was intact. Nebuchadnezzar (who apparently made no claim to have won egypt - think he got defeated by them at carchamesh?) attacked in 586/7 BCE. The pharaoh at the time was Apries (598-570 BCE). In 570 BCE, he was defeated and replaced by Amasis, who reigned until 526 BCE, and was replaced by Psammetichus III (526-525 BCE), who was then replaced by the son of the Persian Cyrus the great.
Interestingly, it appears that Ezekiel is admitting he got it wrong about the handing over of plunder from tyre: Ezekiel 29: 17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Slightly off topic, I believe daniels 70 sets of 7s was an attempt to rescue or even extend a false prophecy in a time of national crisis (antiochus epiphanies). Eitherway, no messia came - see the link i posted earlier for more details

1355. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31347 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

Stevie Nice point about the calender. I haven't come across that before.

Quetzalcoatl That's me convinced. How would you like do be worshiped? Can you fix it for me to hook up with Jessica Alba? :-)

Lee

That site really is bad. My former church had a link to it, and I pointed out that it is full of lies and crap. It was then that I discovered that the minister wasn't really interested in the truth

1356. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31334 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 4:05 am

Hi Lee,
The problem with literature like that is that it assumes the bible to be true and that there must be a god, which is the point of contention between believers and non believers. A colleague once gave me a christian science pamphlet (this guy believed men and women have a different number of ribs because of genesis 2). The only arguements it had were the bible. I think the difference between believers and non believers is that we tend to give the otherside more consideration than they do. Basically, if it disagrees with the bible, it must be false. I read some creationist stuff on 14 C levels in Diamonds by mass spec. This was used as an arguement for a young earth, so I looked into it some more, and it turns out that 14C can be created de novo by decay of uranium in surrounding rocks. A creationist generally stops looking at the bit that suits him.

Maybe they need a visit from the baby eating bishop of Barthenwells, or to paraphrase Captain B. some more "To you Mr fundie, the age of reason was something that happened to someone else" :-)

1357. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31326 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:55 am

Mark

If I cant draw mysef away, I will get back to you on Ezekial (Im on a coffee break just now)


Jeremiah 25: 9 I will gather together all the armies of the north under King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all against this land and its people and against the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and contempt and a ruin forever. 10 I will take away your happy singing and laughter. The joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your millstones will fall silent, and the lights in your homes will go out. 11 This entire land will become a desolate wasteland. Israel and her neighboring lands will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years.

12 "Then, after the seventy years of captivity are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his people for their sins," says the Lord. "I will make the country of the Babylonians[e] a wasteland forever.


It is claear that It is clear that isreal will remain desolate for the time span. It is clear from archaeological evidence, that this is not so, and even Jerusalem had a significant population at this time - the number of captives taken was very small. See the books I referenced above.
It is clear that they are to serve the king of babylon for 70 years (verse 11). There really is no other way to read this. The king was removed long before the seventy years were up.

Just to re-iterate, I do appreciate your efforts here, but at best, all you have done is shown that prophecy is not specific enough, and that plenty of doubt remains.

All the best

Billy

1358. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31318 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:33 am

Yeah, and the pope says that condoms don't prevent AIDS either!
Oh yeah, previous popes on the authority of the bible believed in a flat geocentric universe - not the first time it has been wrong! At least science allows you to move on when you are wrong. The bible is always fixed though

1359. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31190 by BillySands on April 11, 2007 at 9:48 am

JC

It is interesting that you bring up Ezekiel 29:17-20. Just before it, there are some more specific claims Ez 29:8 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD. " 'Because you said, "The Nile is mine; I made it," 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. 11 No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries. (NIV)
There is the specific mention of 40 years of desolation. This never happened.
In much the same way, Jeremiah was specific about Jerusalem being desolate for 70 years. However, The Babylonians took Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE (rewriting the bible p154) and Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 538 BCE (rtb p156). He also proclaimed that the Jews could return home in the first year of his reign (Ezr. 1:1-4). This is at most 49 years, and even if we are generous and take the start of the prophecy as 597 BCE, when the Babylonians first laid siege to Jerusalem (The bible unearthed p293), that still only totals 59 years. During that time, neither Israel nor Jerusalem lay desolate (tbu pp 305-308), and Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus. In fact, Alexander the Great (356-321 BCE) may have considered using the city as his capital (The Babylonians An Introduction p67).
Daniel tries to reinterpret this, and some christians claim it is about the date of the coming of Jesus (although, I don't think this is a valid reading of his "prophecy") Either way, that fails too, but is a story for another day (those interested can get more details here ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html). I'm not addicted to this site - I can stop any time I want to - wibble

1360. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31189 by BillySands on April 11, 2007 at 9:48 am

Lee
I think you asked somewhere about where YECs get their (dis)information from. It appears in sites such as these: http://www.creationontheweb.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

http://www.christiananswers.net/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
I find the content of these sites disgusting in their dishonesty and attempts to pervert the understanding of science. They make their agendas clear - that the bible is inerrant and will only interpret science in that light, and reject/deny that which contradicts the bible.

YECs should search these sites (some contributers are christian themselves)

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/

1361. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30902 by BillySands on April 10, 2007 at 9:17 am

What a muppet! The William Wallace stuff is news to me (and probably 5 million other Scots. Is he really saying we should believe in the ressurection because of our traditions? Here are some reasons not to believe in the resurrection; http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

1362. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29913 by BillySands on April 5, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Trying to not get drawn back in to something that takes up too much time. I noticed as i was skimming, some discussion about biblical values of morality. The OT is definately disgusting, with laws forecing victims to marry their rapists and calls to kill homosexuals, women and babies (ordered by god at jericho for example). Much of this does appear to be racially motivated. After all, nehemiah on reading the law (neh 13:1-3) makes it clear that moabites may never enter the assembly of god, and they expell those of mixed ancestry, not those following other religions - I think I discussed this earlier in relation to the fact that jesus had a moabite ancstor (ruth) that he shouldn't have had. Presumably they also split up families. How can you also justify murdering infants because their parents worship other gods? This is all pretty gross stuff. If theists want to argue that these laws relate to a particular stage of society, then they have to concede that god is not a source of moral absolutes, as hopefully they agree that such laws are just wrong. An amusing insight into the evils of the bible can be found here :http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html Check them in context, and you will find god is responsible.
Killing people for worshiping other gods is not in keeping with the christian idea of a loving and forgiving god who wants to save everyone (except blasphemers againt the holy spirit and apostates(that's me doubly screwed :-) ).
JC It is always a pleasure to read your very well argued posts. Have you written any books on religion at all?
Lee The incredulity that Theo and Behe show towards the bacterial flagellum displays their inability to come up with a rational explanation (no offence meant Theo, I think you are in denial about evolution, but I actually like you, and think you should read some books on evolution/geology with out a creationist commentry at your side when you do so) the bacterial syringe just shows that the intelligent design hypothesis is nothing more than a surrendering to personal limitations "If I cant explain it, then it must be god". This is just another example of the flawed worship of the god of the gaps.
Mark We will probably never agree on the interpretation of your verses, but thankyou for actually trying to provide something positive. That is chronically lacking from theists elsewhere on this site. I detect you and Shaun are literal young earth creationists though, but I will put much more weight in geology, radiochemistry, genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, ethology and geography rtc than I will in a book that has many problems associated with it and contradicts the evidence of the above.
Really going to try and keep away for a bit now - nothing personal :-)

1363. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29488 by BillySands on April 3, 2007 at 4:47 am

Hi guys,
Just passing through. Not all Christian groups consider Daniel to be an inspired work, and some version of Daniel vary considerably, so it is not just sceptics that doubt its status. Mark, I dont have time to refute your claims, but I'm sure you know I do, and with reason, ont because I want to. I think I posted near the beginning of this thread on Jeremiah's failed prophecy, and how the bible says the jews defeated the Assyrians in 701 BCE and claimed that the Assyrian King Sennacherib went home to be killed by his sons. However, we know that Sennacherib lived a further 20 years, and built monuments to his victories against the jews. The OT is a book with an agenda, not (all) sceptics

Theo
The bacterial flagellum can be further reduced to a structure called the bacterial syringe, It is not irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is an arguement from ignorance. Just because you cannot immagine how something can not be reduced, is no evidence for a creator. It just means you cant or wont come up with a rational explanation -like the bacterial syringe. This is very embarrassing for IDists, because it was one of their flagships - it has now been reduced - I can hear the arguements for infinite reduction already.
BTW, the universe is at least 12 billion years old, and may contain a billion billion planets, that is plenty of opportunity for life to arise - and it took about 9 billion years for it to do so in this corner of space. A more convincing arguement for god would be a young universe with only one planet in it. That however is not the universe we inhabit - being a physicist, I'm sure Lee can argue this point with those who wish to deny science.

Dont plan comming back in any great hurry, so take care guys

Billy

1364. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29463 by BillySands on April 3, 2007 at 2:12 am

Philmillhaven
I had a bizzarre discussion with a christian friend on friday about Bach, Beethoven et al. He actually claimed that the beauty in these works was in itself evidence of god's existence. Yhen I pointed out that other religions produce works of beauty too, but no one claims that these are evidence for their gods. Thankfully, he agreeed with me, but it just shows how so many christians are unable to look beyond the boundries of their own faith.

veronique
You are very correct. I wonder how many theists he has deconverted.

1365. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #29180 by BillySands on April 2, 2007 at 2:25 am

Nice one Richard! Cant wait to hear what those who want their kids to grow up believing in a blood thirsty, tyrannical, homophobic, baby killing god have to say about this

1366. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29018 by BillySands on April 1, 2007 at 7:54 am

One final thing, keeping on the topic of parasitism, how can a so called loving god create diseases such as Small Pox, Ebola and River blindness. Lets not forget HIV which infects babies that have never sinned - oh yes, that's right, we are sinful from conception (psalm 51:5). I blame god. Afterall, he makes us in the womb (psalm 139:14-15), so he must make us sinfull - well, he hasnt written his law on our hearts - we have to learn them (psalm 119:7) Is this just? Is this what you really worship? That is just disgusting and we will never see eye to eve on this.

1367. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29015 by BillySands on April 1, 2007 at 7:27 am

David, Why do I bother with you, I must feel sorry for you. There may be up to a billion billion planets in the universe, which is itself 12 billion years old, and will gget a lot older (no second commings that should have happened 2000 years ago (mat 26:64)! That is a large opportunity for life to appear by chance. Then again, life may be more probable than you think. Afterall, ther eis no reliable way to work out the probability of it occurring. If the earth was a few thousand years old and the only planet in the universe, you may have a point, but it's not and you dont, so please drop your corrupted view of the anthropic principle as evidence for god. Here is something for you to ponder. You believe that if god wanted to, he could provide ultimate proof that he exists. You have lots of contrived excuses as to why he doesn't. Given that you believe that god has his reasons not to appear, why do you think that you should try and prove his existance, after all, he is supposed to convert folk through the holy spirit.
Dont lie about tarring all atheists with the same brush. You have a rich history on this site of branding people who disagree with you as fundamentalists - do you think that is going to endear any one to you? as for your comments about starting with a presupposition that god does not exist, there is no evidence for that, so why should we assume he exists, and we dont need him to explain anything. You assume with out evidence that he does exist, and you delude yourself. Your position starts from the assumption that all other views and gods are false - who is the closed minded one then?

Btw, the bible sets disgusting moral standards. Here is just one example, how is it moral to make a rapist marry his victim, pay her father and never be allowed to divorce her (deut 22:28-29). If you say it is because of the society that the law was for, then you have to conclude that god is not a source of moral absolutes and that there is no need for him in a moral sence - how do you explain the fact that of the few examples of good moral practice in the bible, nost people regardless of belief share them? Let me introduce you to the answer to that - natural selection
for those interested, this is a good source for some of those gool old moral laws of god.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
If you do not share gods warped moral views, then you are condemned to an eternity of suffering in hell - according to david (not according to many other christian groups though). Are we to assume that David supports these disgusting laws?
Micah 5:2 or Isaiah 7:14 in their original contexts anyone?

1368. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #29011 by BillySands on April 1, 2007 at 7:03 am

I often find that when people talk about the probability of life in general, they tend to think in terms of life as we recognise it here on earth. Even on earth there are many niches that are occupied by life that were previously thought uninhabitle. This is another reason to be unimpressed by those who try to use the anthropic principle for theistic purposes: that and the fact that there may be a billion billion planets in a 12 billion year old universe - not counting all the planets that have been and ever will be. If the earth were the only planet in the universe, and it were a few thousand years old, then the theist would have a stronger case - instead of none at all. Could that be why creationists are in denial of scientific facts? just a thought!

1369. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24742 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 9:35 am

couldbethelasttime
I am refering to those who have doubts about god.
I too would like high quality debate, but people like bizzaro fail to provide it (his bias is clear in his choice of pseudonym). Usually all we see are personal attacks on dawkins, atheist, ignorant mythology, arguements from incredulity and preaching. No positive evidence of god. It would be worthwile debateing only with those who are open minded enough to realise that they may be wrong. Most atheists (myself included) do accept there is a small possibility we could be wrong, however, we see no evidence that we are. As I keep saying, I will re-evaluate my position on evolution if someone shows me an articulated fossil human in the earliest rocks - even with articulated dinosaur fossils would do (half expecting someone to mention the glen rose dinosaur tracks now - check the size of them guys!)
I dont see many theists on this site with that attitude

1370. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24734 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 9:01 am

Bizarro, You clearly come to this forum with a closed mind, so dont accuse me of what you are. Tell me was your first post really a loving christian comment? If jesus was real, he wouldn't be happy with you alienating folk with comments like that. It puts people off anything you may have to contribute - which n terms of gods existance so far has been nothing Got a photo? an inerrant book? real prophecies about jesus that have not been contrived? evidence of a 6 day creation? No?
I'm sorry you cant see that biblical problems totally undermine the bible itself. Perhaps this is you puting your head in the sand and hoping it will go away here.

PS, I have had civil debates with civil christians like Shaun, Theo , mark tauton etc and spoken out against those who insuled them. Get the point?
couldthisbethelastime,
The more junk people publish, the more people will see how absurd faith is.

1371. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24729 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 8:37 am

couldthisbethelastime,

I have come across him before. His only intention is to wind people up, not disuss anything. Therefore, he deserves my contempt.

PS, I'm not angry, I'm just telling it how it is. Do you really think reason will work on someone who comes in and makes a comment like that?

1372. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24725 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 8:19 am

Bizzarro, I actually think you are a retard that is indulging in strawman making of his own. But hey, for hypervitriol, you just cant beat the bible. The bible says that we all deserve to go to hell, especially those nasty moabites that must never enter the congregation of god - you know like the ones Ezra kicked out after reading the law of god. Oh wait, I just remembered, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (one of the few ones Matthew and Luke can agree on. Oh dear, does that mean the whole philosophy that you build your understanding of the universe on is bullshit???????

It would have been nice if you actually had something worth saying, instead of launching into a vitriolic attack - but hey, thats the bible for you. By the way, Does richard deserve to be stoned for saying god almost cetainally does not exist? It's in the Babble afterall. Like I say, Retard!
PS Hear the one about the ot prophecies foretelling that jesus would be born in Bethelehem to a virgin and that he would return one day?
NA?, me neither, they don't exist.

1373. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24717 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 7:22 am

Posted this elsewhere, but this is probably a better place for it.
Fundies say the darndest, maddest and saddest things http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp
I particularly like this one

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

I wonder what colour the sun is on his planet

1374. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24701 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 5:41 am

Strange, neither God or the bible got shortlisted. Guess they dont have an infanticidal bronze age mythology award

1375. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24699 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 5:17 am

Fundies say the darndest, maddest and saddest things http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

I particularly like this one

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

I wonder what colour the sun is on his planet

1376. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #24695 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

Hi Lee,
Thanks for your comments. I was not knocking physics by the way, just pointing out that things like cosmology are still in their infacy just now.

Mark As I said, some things on Kinsey's site are not true contradictions. Many are though. And when I said Check for yourself, that naturally means read the context, and I have pointed out that christians fail to do so concerning prophecies.
God actually killed more than a few in the bible. The count exceeds 2 million. And if he were god, that does not make killing infants etc right - that is totally incompatible with a loving and forgiving god. We will just have to agree to differ on that, because the OT god in particular disgusts me

Theo

Infinite regress stops at an infinite being.

You are going to have to back that up and disprove the possibility of other explanations (known and unknown). Also, you are not only assuming a creator, but you are assuming qualities about that creator. You are in effect creating the rules here - and without justification. I see no evidence to believe in a creator. How can something just be and not need an explanation of its own origins? for arguement sake, why can the universe not have always existed without a god?

A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from? See above

See above. Who created god?

This is why atheists should not object to atheism being called a faith. To believe in a scientifically falsified theory over a theory that cannot be scientifically tested is truly delusional.

It is not a faith and you contantly saying so does not make you right. I'm sorry to say that evolution hasd not been falsified, and so much evidence exists for it. I can also sequence and compare genes and genomes, compare fossil homologies, date rocks etc. Evolution can be tested and is striongly supported. It is a reasonable belief. If you think that atheism is a faith (although you confuse this with belief in evolution) then deciding to sit on a chair is also an act of faith - will it hold my weight?
You howevere have no direct proof of god, and there is much evidence against the claims of the bible. Please point out the delusion here.

Actually Billy I am arguing from a deistic perspective (for argument sake) because the bible/ Christianity/ Evolution does not have any bearing on the existence of a creator. I have wasted enough time on debating the bible with atheists, even though I have refuted all claims directed to me about the scriptures it seems that no profit was gained. I am not squandering any more time going back there.

No, you are argueing about a hypothetical creator who just happens to have the qualities you want your god to have (without any evidence that he even exists first). I dont recall you refuting my comments on Isaiah 7:14 or Micah 5:2. I seem to remember that no valid defense was made.

You have provided no reproducible evidence that life could have arisen without a creator, do you really want me to believe in the falsified S.G. hypothesis? That is absurd to say the least! The burden of proof is on you Billy. (I could however delude myself into actually accepting a falsified theory so that atheists would label me a "Critical Thinker")

Theo, we are back at the god of the gaps again here. The genetic similarities in all life argue against creation, The decaying remnats of ancestral genes do too. Mutation is random and most are harmful. The forces that cause speciation - climate change, continental drift, volcanism etc all have physical explanations. How does that indicate the presence of god?
Here are some evolutionary predictions.
organisms on one continent are more simmilar to each other than to ones on different continents - Proven true!
the most similar organisms have the most similar genes - Again true!
New groups appear in the fossil record at different times - Very true!
Transitional forms appear at an appropriate time in the fossil record - True! (the record is better than you seem willing to believe)
We inherit pseudogenes and repetetive elements from ancestral species groups - true - read about hhuman specific, ape specific and promate specific lines and sines and the evolutionm of the globin genes of primates. All show evolutionary progression.
ETC ETC ETC (i AM BORED WITH THIS!)
You are in denial about evolution. You have provided no evidence against it

How does your evidence of "creation" compare to this?

BTW there is a difference between an atom and an electron

God is bigger than an electon, and we have evidence that electons exist

Going to try not to come back - nothing personal, it just eats up too much time

1377. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24687 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 4:05 am

Scottishgeologist,

Prayer most cerainly does work. I asked the spaghetti monster not to let my head fall off during the night, and it didn't so there!

Seriously, it does make me despair at the fact these folk think that anything will ever happen. I remember as I was comming to my senses, my former minister prayed that jesus would appear to Saddam hussein and prevent the war happening. They also shout "miracle" any time someone appears to break an addiction. Usually they send 6 months in rehab getting proper medical care, then a few months later, they relapse. I even asked David to pray thay Jessica Alba and Kirsty Gallacher would kick down my door and "Know" me. I'm still waiting :-(

1378. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24545 by BillySands on March 7, 2007 at 7:18 am

Love the link Ewan. It is amazing that no one in their right mind would buy the kiss Hanks ass thing, but you mix a bit of memetics with the need for a psychological crutch and you get christianity and the kissing of god's ass.
Wonder if Mary Magdalene gave Jesus a trouser friendly kiss? :-)

When I get a new colour catridge, I think I will attach a god delusion flyer to my old church (oh no, David will call me a fundie for trying to encourage people to consider their faith in a non violent way)

1379. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #24388 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 10:31 am

Dirtpiggy,
People like Robertson call anyone who does not accept their authority fundamentalists. They often label passion about knowing the truth as closed minded fanaticism. Yet, the more they rant and the more they fail to engage in reasoned debate, the more they take on the accusations they falsely hurl at atheists.

1380. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #24387 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 10:21 am

I wonder what verses they used. Some of them are not justifiable on any grounds - like killing babies because their parents have a different faith.
We "protect" children from violent and sexually explicit material by introducing guidance ratings and watersheds. Should we not also protect them from the intolerant genocidal filth that is in the bible too?

1381. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24384 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 10:01 am

Chris,
I love the freecrutch comment :-) Sadly, it is often the case that this cructch does more harm than good to those who rely upon it.
It's funny that several folk have said or implied that Robertson has talked them out of faith. It truely is a valuable preaching opportunity. I'm yet to hear someone say " well done David, thanks to you I have become a Christian - wibble! woof woof!"

1382. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24377 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 9:11 am

Nicely put Jenny (sorry for the back slapping). The idea that we deserve death is totally repulsive, and why does all mankind deserve this? Well allegedly 2 people ate a fruit that god told them not to. We all deserve death for this one act. Funny thing was, this fruit allowed them to know the difference between right and wrong. Before that, they could not tell the difference. They were punnished severely for an act they did not know was wrong. And what loving father creates evil and puts it in the garden beside his children. A bit like letting a paedophile baby sit for you really. How screwed up is that myth! But I have seen and experienced how this lack of self worth ruins lives - no doubt David does not know any such people and denies they exist - especially in his own church.
I mention a bit about evolution and "sin" in coment 89
PS dont give him credit on his knowledge of scripture. He doesnt deserve any. Check his own thread by the way. Apparently Alex was a minister in his church and puts him through the mill (as have many others)

1383. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #24368 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 8:01 am

I wonder what christian heritage she means? Religious wars, slavery and crusades perhaps? Surely that is something to apologise for - like the holocaust, and not celebrate.
Why do we have to drag religion into it. Can we not just concentrate on people for once and not cause further division in the name of white chistian supremacy - Fucking arsehole!

90 MILLION GERMANS CANT BE WRONG! PS DON'T MENTION ZE WAR - EITHER OF THEM

1384. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24360 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 7:15 am

Ian,
As well as Psalm 14, the bible is full of hate for those who dont follow its god.
A nice example is found here in Deuteronomy 13 "6 "Suppose someone secretly entices you—even your brother, your son or daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend—and says, 'Let us go worship other gods'—gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known. 7 They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth. 8 But do not give in or listen. Have no pity, and do not spare or protect them. 9 You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in. 10 Stone the guilty ones to death because they have tried to draw you away from the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear about it and be afraid, and no one will act so wickedly again."

Note it also seems to think that fear is a good motive to make others do what it considers right. Surely true "goodness" if it actually exists is done for goodness sake.

And David. It was the appaulingly immoral actions of an other christian that caused me to start questioning. I guess you lot are the only ones who actually think you are nice. Who has the best behaviour is actually irrelevant to the issue of gods existance anyway. It therefore does not suprise me that you are prolonging it. OK it does suprise me a little bit, there have been 2001-2011 years of christian atrocities, so you dont exactly smell of roses. Forgive the 10 year uncertainty. I just cant work out who is right about the date of jesus' birth (Matt 4 BCE or Luke 6CE). I seem to remember that you were no help there - you just said there was no evidence of a conflict, and when I presented evidence there was, you invented some non evidence of your own (actually I think you never actually evaluated it for yourself) then I destroyed your evidence (a nameless, dateless, adressless partial inscription of no relevance) and you just said that I was wrong, with no reason why. There is a definate theme here with you. Isn't there!

1385. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24331 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 3:23 am

David
This is typical of your response

FedlerGenerally, I feel non-believers stop at "I don't know", whereas believers go one step further and say "It's God".

DavidNot so true. I am not a 'God of the Gaps' person. And many others are not as well.

That is not a reasoned justification of your position. It is made even worse for you because Fedler then went on to say this:

However, I then feel the believers have the responsibility to explain their one step further.

You totally ignored this very important point and just said "i am not like that". We tould love to hear your justification of this step.

By the way Tom Day. He writes elsewere that some gushy inner feelings about the sea and singing made him realise that god was true.

BTW David, was your rant at Gordon Brown a childish attempt to say " in your face atheists, we will have another christian prime minister"?

Personally, any government that allows equality for all faiths (and lack of) and removes privilages from exclusive homophobic christians (sexual orientation bill and christian unions) is alright in my book

1386. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24322 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 2:36 am

Good Morning David,
I see you have omitted to defend the virgin birth prophecy again. That's pretty typical of your approach. Instead, you like to state things like

Have a wee look at my letters and you will see the clear evidence that Hitler was not a Christian and that he in fact expounded very similar beliefs to many atheists.

Hitler was indeed a christian, and you have had this pointed out to you often - I believe this was the subject of a couple of Martin's posts that you deleted from your site. Are you actually saying that all christians behave perfectly? In many respects, Hitler acted just like Josuah, who was commanded (by god) to eradicate the cananites. How can you say that he was not acting like a follower of your god. One that acted in a pleasing way to him at that I suspect that despite your claims to the contrary that you are taking a swipe at atheists here.

Everyone, I have a prediction. David keeps saying that there is no incompatibility between science and the bible. I bet he wont defend this position.
For many reasons, I think there is an incompatibility. Evolution makes amokery of the 6 day creation (some thing that GOD, "moses", paul and jesus clearly believe). Evolution also makes a mockery of the fall. After all, survival traits are selfish. Selfishness is a sin. We were selected (naturally) to be selfish. Therefore, we did not bring sin into the world, it was always there. No fall, then there is no need for jesus. Or is this yet another unjust side of god that I have exposed. Like I said David, prophecies attibuted to Jesus ARE NOT ABOUT JESUS, therefore christianity is a myth

1387. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24221 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 11:14 am

But you see that is the trouble. You ask for empirical scientific absolute proof of a material God - and use that to discount the possibility of a non material God.

Yet another irrational assumption based on another irrational assumption. You are going to have to justify that a god whose holy book claims he interacts in the physical world, who asks you to test him is beyond testing. One example is Isaiah 7:11 (part of the virgin birth non prophecy is one of many examples) where God says "Ask me for a sign".
How many people here have had some fundie come up to them and say that if they trust god, he will prove himself to them - no doubt that has never happened to David, and he has never said that to anyone himself
Such comments about testability are just non biblical wishful thinking by those who dont want to face up to their delusion.
If all you can say is believe because it might be true, then that is no rational foundation for belief.

1388. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24201 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 8:29 am

Hey David, I thought you wanted to argue your case? I posted some stuff above on prophecies. Perhaps you would actualy care to respond, and if it is the case that you can not mount a reasonable defence, then be honest enough to admit that you are relying on faith despite the evidence to the contrary.
I expect that you wont, given your previous comment concerning the date of the nativity in luke vs matthew. What was it again " I'll answer that on the assumption that you wish to be educated and are not making accusations against the bible" or words to that effect, that show your inability to consider that you could be wrong. Shame you went in a huff when your comment was destroyed. You may have been educated.

Yours Unexpectantly

Billy

1389. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24176 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 6:40 am

Fonex said:

I fail to see these theists' point. If god exists, and is as powerful as they claim (forget omniscience for now), why would he need any religious yahoos to defend him/her/itself?

What a beautifully simple but devastating statement. Of course, theists lie to themselves and say that we really are not looking hard enough for god (i think that really means that we are not leading ourselves into delusion by brainwashing ourselves).
No theist has any good evidence. It is all just "well, you cant prove or disprove anything, so our faith is on the same par as yours". Yeah, and we all think the spaghetti monster in on the same par too! A book that claims the earth is flat, six thousand years old, and that life was created in its current form in 6 days is not a viable option. It fails the reality test.

Theist : "Ah, but it is not meant to be taken literally"
Atheist: "REALLY, HOW DO YOU KNOW?"
Theist: "Well science shows that is not the way it is"
Atheist" So, you have already decided the bible is evidence of god, so you are trying to bend its message with out reason to make it fit reality. Having done so, you then hold this up as evidence that it is evidence of god? isn't that somewhat insane?"
Theist: "Well, obviously you have to read it in the spirit of god"
Atheist: " so your faith is not based on rationality because you are already presuming the existance of god"
Theist: "erm well, you cant prove anything, so all belief systems are equally likely"
Atheist: "yaaawwwnnn"

1390. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24172 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 6:15 am

Your definition of faith seems to be based on yet another atheist myth, that faith is irrational and despite or even in opposition to, the evidence.

David, if Stewart reads your thread he will see you show how irrational your faith is http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson
Why do Matthew (1) and Luke (3) give totally different genealogies for jesus again?
How is Isaiah 7:14 about jesus being born to a virgin? For those who dont know, it is actually about a sign to be given to a king by god as assurance that the land will not be invaded. This all happens about 730 BCE.
Davids response is that a prophecy is not necessarily about the person it is given for, or restricted to the context in which it is given - apparently everyone knows that. Is this really faith based on reason? of course not.
I point these things out and he just gets abusive and tells me I know nothing and should take some pills boo hoo :-(

The fact of the matter is that david has decided the bible is true despite the evidence. It is clear in places that he will not consider that he is wrong. In other places he pretends to doubt, and in other places he says that he is as certain that jesus is alive as he is of his own wifes existance. Come on David, it's time for you to get some therapy isn't it.

1391. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24167 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 5:52 am

Parasitism is probably the most exploited ecological niche on the planet. Even parasites have parasites. These guys particularly Robertson display an incredible example of parasitic reductionism, where parasites lose genes that they no longer require. In this case, genes for intelligence

1392. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24162 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 5:34 am

"The Wee Flea (aka David Robertson - just in case some can't work it out - I would not want to be accused of dishonesty again!)."

What a liar!!! you were not accused of dishonesty for covering up your identity (there are plenty of other reasons we could give though). Where it was pointed out that you were stpetes, a link was provided to a comment confirming this. The comment gave your reasons for this change. You really are a slippery liar who tries to distort things to make others look bad.
I presume your book contains your letters to dawkins. If so, good. They have been well ripped appart, and we can go on the publishers site and review the book for them. That would be nice. wouldn't it

1393. Faith

Comment #24161 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 5:24 am

Well, Wee Flee aka David,

117. Billy - it's not good to lie. There is no member of my Church who thinks they are going to hell for listening to the wrong music - musical tastes in my congregation range from heavy metal to Cliff Richard (although perhaps this latter should result in at least purgatory!). Please don't misrepresent and caricature. You obviously have a lot of angst and anger but try to avoid letting it all come out here.

Now, David, If you actually read my post carefully, the claim was that she was told she would go to hell for listening to the wrong music. Since you do not know who I am referring to, I find it amazing that you seem to know what she does and does not believe. And on a bad day, comments like that do make her believe she is going to hell. BTW I am referring to the free church as a whole, not your specific branch
Yeah, I am angry at hypocritical idiots like you that go go out of their way to decieve and wind folk up. Don't make it common knowledge David, but there are Christians on this site with whom I have had discussions that have been carried out with mutual respect. I think I was quite respectful on your site too. I found Catherine so nice that I almost felt guilty about attacking her faith. In fact most people on your site were nice - Hell, if the Partick wee frees do an alpha course, I may even go along and politely discuss my position with them.
Shame you are not so pleasant though

121. Billy - naughty naughty. Posts were not repeatedly removed. You had a couple removed because they were off topic and you were told to post them in a new thread.

Actually David, they were not off thread. I seem to remember that it was the "argueing with atheists" thread. The comments were about your misrepresentation of atheists and atheism(Fancy retracting your biochemist comment yet?)

We have actually allowed both you and Martin to post (Martins posts were excellent and a fine example of how to argue) without editing.

Tut Tut David - trying to iumply my arguements were not good - actually you said that about Martin elsewhere too - pathetic attempt to get a rise. Oh, How did you deal with my dismissal of Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14? Paleopathology and the fall? The census of quirinius? Thats right you didn't. the moment you realised that you were losing, you went in a huff, branded me a fundamentalist, told me to keep taking the pills etc etc. Come on David.,What age are you really?

Do you not think it a bit ironic that atheists are allowed to post on the Free Church website material which some will find very upsetting,

What, you mean like evidence that the bible is false? Are you really such a weak lot? Why did you delete that troll comment of yours when I posted it for your congregation to see? Are you then saying that it is OK for you to then come here and be offensive?

(I guess most atheists would caricature us as fundamentalists) whilst any time I say anything which upsets the poor wee souls on this site I get banned! Go figure....

Amazing David, you denounce caricature formation, yet form one of your own. Truely amazing! I was threatened with a ban by you for reproducing your troll comment on your site. I was also threatened with a ban for posting on too may threads. Seems that you guys have a very low threshold of intolerance - or perhaps you didn't want your church to see what an inflammatory twat you really are?
I presume you think the longer you can keep the aggro going on this site, the less you have to argue your case - oh, that's right, as mentioned above you cant!
However, You have pointed one thing out to me. Because of the inconsistent doctrine of Paul's letters, I thought that was evidence that more than one person wrote them and pretended to be him. However, from your inconsistency, I may have to conclude that There was only one Paul - who happened to be a nutjob!
I hope someone publishes a list of your self contradictions, that would be funny

1394. Faith

Comment #24154 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 4:15 am

If you read some of his other posts, I think Robertson asks for it and probably encourages it, so he can say to his church "see what they are like" (actully he has a thread on his site about argueing with atheists - where he repeatedly removed polite postings by myself and Martin Gill).

As an exchristian and biochemist, this quote of his really offended me:

I think of the award winning brilliant post doc biochemist. (I'm afraid that I cannot mention his name because such is the witch-hunt that is currently being orchestrated by some in British academic establishments against any scientist who could be deemed a 'creationist', it might actually be a threat to his career)

Despite providing evidence to the contrary, he would not retract this lie. In short, he is a twat. There are actually decent theists on this site, Hopefully we do not tar them all with the same brush as Robertson - something he tries to do with atheists

1395. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23679 by BillySands on March 2, 2007 at 3:35 am

Hi Theo,
you're in luck, I've got a cold and need something to occupy me today (prob really will be my last posting this time).

Um, yes I did. Evidence for a Creator is Creation. Its elementary.

No Theo, you have already presumed the existance of a creator. Since you want to propose a creator and not specifically your god, then a creator surely presupposes a creator of him then and so on to infinity. Compared to this, a naturalistic explanation of life must surely be a simpler and more likely possibility.

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.

No it is not, see above.

Nope, I am not arguing from a biblical perspective (for expedient reasons). The debate is concerning the evidence for a Creator looking at purely extra biblical evidence . As I said before Billy, I will not indulge in evolution either; I am looking at origins.

Unfortunately you are ultimately argueing for the existance of your god, and he says creation took place in 6 days. You seem to be setting the rules to suit yourself here. The fact is that the fossil record, geology, genetics, radiochemisrty all say this did not happen. This I why I say that your specific god cannot be the creator. If you want to take the deist view (which you dont) you still have to explain the existance of the creator.

Did scientists discover atoms because they saw them? Or did they use evidence from the cathode ray and gold foil experiment? They proved the existence of atoms based on indirect observation. Please consider the folly, "No one has seen electrons, so provide direct proof." Savvy?

I chose this example cafefully. The point is that anyone can reproduce Rutherford's experiment and get the same data. All you really have is that life looks designed, therefore it must be, or how can life spontaneously arise? - I cant understand it, so it must be god. It is hardly the same as reproducible evidence. You have provided none. Evolution shows life increasing in complexity and that destroys your version of the god hypothesis - regardless of opinions about origins.

BTW we can directly visualise atoms now. 12 billion years of "creation" and no one has a photo of yahweh

Take care - I'm off to OD on paracetamol - Oh no! some one put the laxatives in the wrong bottle - PPPTTTHHHHTTTT SQUIT :-)

1396. Faith

Comment #23669 by BillySands on March 2, 2007 at 2:17 am

Scottishgeologist,
Robertson is full of tactics like that. He is either lying or needs to meet more people. I know a member of his church who has been dammaged by her mothers constant preaching on hell. Hell for wanting sex, hell for not giving to charity, hell for not being like jesus, Hell for being into the "wrong" music, hell for eating spam etc etc (ok, I made the last one up, but I would not be suprised). A very sad way to have your life spoiled

1397. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23536 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Theo,
this will probably be my last post here. You have provided no evidence for your claims of life. If a god of the gaps arguement is your reason for believing, that is a pretty poor one. One thing is for sure though, as mentioned above complex life only appears late on in the fossil record and follows a ligical sequence. Literal 6 day creationism is therefore not an option. Given the random nature of mutation, guided evolution is not an option either.
Since when has it become necessary to prove the non existance of something for which there is no evidence. Do you feel the need to disprove any theory that states fairies created life? Over 100 years ago, If I said matter was made from atoms that no one had seen, you would quite rightly put the burden of proof on me. No one has seen god, so provide direct proof (actually moses has seen him, even though the bible says no one may see him and live - i discuss this near the start of the thread- strange that from a book that is allegedly the truth!). No one has countered my earlier claims that messianic prophecies are made up either. Wake up and smell the coffee dude, there is no god - especially yours

All the best
Billy

1398. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23521 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

oh dear GBG,
the platypus an embarrasment to evolution? Is that the same platypus that is a good link between mammals and mamal like reptiles? I suppose you think it really does have a birds beak.
Your refusal to get into a debate about archaeopteryx underlines your position of faith. I keep telling you, argue fror youself, dont quote others (especially physicists) to support your need to deny evolution.

You really should justify your rejection of homologus structures. Your comment reveales your closed mindedness - something that you cannot throw back at me because religion and evolution were never an issue to me. You still fail to comment on why we have fossilised genes. For example over half of our olfactory receptor genes are corrupt. Why do we have them? Related species have functional copies. The further you go back the less related a species is to us the more functional genes they contain. The obvious explanation is that we inhereted these genes from ancestors that had and used them. we stopped using them, so natural selection was not actin on them, so they became corrupt. Interestingly, this seems to correlate with the evolution of trichromatic vision in our ancestors (through gene dupication events).

You Also have nothing to say on the fossil record, and you allude to species that suddenly appear with no ancestors. What fish (conodonts) amphibians (acanthostega) mammals (dimetrodon) birds (sinosauroptrex (even more dinosaur like with even more primitive feathers than archaeoptreyx - if you think teeth are the only non bird like property of archaeoptrex, you obviously paid no attention to the 20+ morphological features I posted elsewhere - or you just dont want them to be true). Now, gaps in the fossil record are hardly a case for creationism. Plenty of nice fossils no doubt wait to be discovered. What is a problem for creationism though is that you do not get birds and humans in the oldest rocks. You seem to ignore this fact, as well as the timies that innermediate fossils occur in the fossil record. Why are modern humans only found in rocks younger than 1-200 0000 years ols, but the earliest fossils are thousands of millions of years old? Why?
You have no case against evolution - The bible is wrong, deal with it!

I will forgo the links thanks. Previous experience of your links just leave me exasperated at the ignorance and misrepresentations on the sites. If you had argued your point i would have considered it

If this is such a big deal to you, I suggest that you actually consider the evidence for yourself. Your main arguements come in the form of "so and so says so". You clearly are just going along with what suits the way you want things to be. i probably wont reply to you again, because your mind is so clearly closed.

Despite the harsh words, all the best
Billy

1399. The Only One in Step

Comment #23516 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 11:44 am

BaronOchs,
GBG and other IDist like to simply look at life and go "wow, that is really complex, it can only be gods work".
I have suggested he reads about opsin gene evolution and "fossil" genes in the past. He has a closed mind and despite the overwhelming evidence, he sticks to this delued and misinformed mantra of "no transitional fossils exist", "a fly produces a fly" etc. He either is not listening, or has decided evolution is wrong, and nothing is going to change his mind. Personally i think that is his loss. i think understanding molecular evolution makes organisms that much more wonderful.

1400. The Only One in Step

Comment #23515 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 11:36 am

GBG,
I really am getting tired of your misinformed attacks on evolution. Where do you get this rubbish from? I'm still waiting for a detailed refutation of bird dinosaur liks from you. Would it not be fair to say that the only reason you have a problem with it is because it is non biblical? Your mind is therefore closed and I personally dont see any point continuing any discussion with you. There are plenty of transitional fossils, life does not appear suddenly, we have DNA evidence from LINES and SINES, we have pseudogenes, we have horizontal transfer, gene duplications, convertion of processed pseudogenes etc etc. And despite that, you would rather believe a book (which most certainly does say the earth is flat). In fact, you believe in a god you have never seen or heard. How is your bible any different to the koran? It is so full of errors, look at how hard you have to defend it. It is no different to the koran in that respect. At least we both agree that is not a divenely inspired book.