101. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195495 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 10:50 am

Comment #195486 by severalspeciesof

My posts haven't been getting through, anyone else with that problem?

Not exactly but when I click on the latest comment from the home page I get directed to page 158.
Something is not quite right.

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195480 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 9:57 am

I think the dear Reverend Dark has outdone himself with the queasiness-inducing invented deities this time. A truly remarkable example of the art.

I don't know. I rather enjoyed it.

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195428 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 7:56 am

Comment #195424 by Steve Zara

The "non-replicating object" criterion is key. If something is clearly too simple to replicate (like a watch), then invoking an evolved designer is, I think, reasonable.

An evolved designer can design replicating organisms.

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195420 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 7:37 am

Podaar:

I've been saying all along you are my doppleganger.

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195411 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 7:26 am

Comment #195387 by Dr Benway

Without any prior experience with the designer's handiwork, the design inference becomes an exercise in circular reasoning.

But what about the opposite?
As hungarianelephant said we assume no designer for most of the living world. No one designed hummingbirds to have beaks that fit into flowers. We assume they evolved.
We would assume a terrier evolved if we encountered one in the wild and had no prior experience of one. (You could imagine going to an island where the human inhabitants had died out and left behind animals that they had bred for a particular purpose).
We would infer a completely natural process, i.e. evolution through random mutation and natural selection. However, the reality of the situation would be different. Although we would have no way of knowing that.

106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195372 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 6:10 am

8019. Comment #195369 by SRWB

I think there is a difference in that there was an intention behind the morphology. Evolution is blind. There is no predetermined goal. Whereas with the terier there was.
I think this makes a difference.

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195365 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 5:53 am

What Epeeist is advocating is also what I was suggesting.
B- Brian
E-English
E-Epeeist
F-Frankus

We will call it the BEEF-Y approach. :)

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195351 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 5:31 am

Comment #195349 by Podaar

I knew someone would go there.

109. Darwinmania!

Comment #195350 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 5:30 am

Just a note on the t-shirts:
Richard Dawkins said that if we purchase items through this website, the RDFoundation gets a kickback.
Could we get a link to Darwin t-shirts from this site?

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195348 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 5:26 am

Are you saying that scientists sometimes start from the assumption that evolution is true and look for reasons based on evolution why a particular attribute of an organism might have conferred an advantage?

Thank you hungarianelephant.
Now my dog question makes sense.
In answer to your question: yes.
If we were to look at a Jack Russell terrier we would see that it has short legs and a small body and it can fit into rabbit holes easily. We would assume that this conferred an advantage. Those dogs that lived in an environment where there were plenty of rabbits would get more of them to eat if they could get down the rabbit holes to eat them. This makes sense looking at it through an evolutionary lens.
However, we know that Jack Russell terriers were bred/designed by us for the purpose of flushing rabbits out of their holes.
We assume evolution when the reality, in this particular instance, is somewhat different.
That was my question fuzzily formed this morning.

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195324 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 4:19 am

How can one tell if something was designed?
This was a question asked a while back.
I made a comment about designer tomatoes. We could tell they were designed by looking closely at the DNA.
What about designer dogs?
We have not inserted anything into the DNA of a greyhound. We have selectively bred, and hence 'designed' a dog for a specific purpose. It can self-replicate.
How could one tell the difference between a dog that was designed for a specific purpose and one that came about through a process of random mutation and natural selection?
I also had a thought about beavers.
Someone asked about beaver dams and wasps nests; are they designed? Or are they natural (non-designed) structures like Kardashovel's Tuscan arch or a snowflake?
I am not sure where I am going with this. The coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
Ignore the beaver thing.
The dog question may be answered with more coffee.
Does it pose a problem of inferring design?

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195138 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Kardashovel,

The Church of the Dude?

I watched most of the movie on Youtube this afternoon.

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195132 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Goldy,

Odd, eh? I mention crop circles, then go to the Telegraph and voila. Spooky.

It is Kardashovel.
He has some thing about coincidences.
I thought of him and he showed up.
You speak of crop circles and poof! there they are.
That's it, I'm off to church.

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195121 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Goldy,

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

What would be the clue?
I know that fish genes have been introduced into tomatoes for some purpose. If you saw these in the DNA it would seem odd.

Steve,

I guess what one can say is is it reasonable to assume that most of what you see needs a designer.

Really?

Edit:
Then you say this to kardashovel:

Does this mean it is reasonable to consider a designer? No.

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195114 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Steve,

To show "design" one would have to be pretty sure that the object you are looking at could not replicate with variation, and so be subject to selection. I think the voyager probe could be taken to pieces sufficiently to show that it could not breed or bud.

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

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

Comment #195081 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Dear tank,



God does not exist.


Love,
Frankus

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195071 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Comment #195021 by Corylus

You have to explain not only the processes of design, but also why the designer might not just be a bit of a klutz "stupid mechanic" (and hence not god).

I think you have Kardashovel's god here.
His god is not omnipotent, just very powerful.
I think god is semi-potent and semi-present and semi-scient.
No, I don't.

Sorry Steve. I think I was on the wrong path there as to what Brian was doing.
I thought he was trying to get a robust counter theory out of an evolution denier; which isn't a bad tactic either.

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

Comment #195067 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Comment #195057 by Roy_H

"It is not the gaps in our understanding of the world that point to God, but rather the comprehensibility of scientific and other forms of understanding that requires an explanantion. In brief the argument is that explicability itself requires explanation"

Thanks Roy_H!
Now I actually have a headache.

119. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195054 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Comment #195026 by Dhamma ,

My hope is that he's the first step on the way for many and eventually they dare to take the full step. What do you think?

I just posted something about this on another thread:

People like Ken Miller argue that things are as they are because that is how God made them at the most basic level. The rest just naturally flows from a universe with elements in it that were created with the properties they have.
That God is a non-interfering God. He has just set things in motion.
I don't really have a problem with that type of god. It doesn't matter if that type of god exists or not. What is the difference between saying 'non-interfering god created everything' and 'everything just is'?

I think Ken Miler does not believe in a non-interfering god. He is a Catholic so his god interferes in human affairs and He had a purpose in mind when He set creation in motion.
I think there is no evidence for the interfering god who designed the universe as it is so we could come about and worship Him.
So I think that Ken Miller is on the right track. The evidence for evolution is obvious. If the same rigor of thought were to be applied to the notion of god he would discover there is no need or evidence of a interfering designer god.

120. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195041 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Comment #195009 by mesomodel,
I was thinking something along those lines on my way home.
Elemental atoms connect to other atoms in particular ways. Molecules fit together in certain ways.
There are patterns that we discern in the structure of things. What appears to be designed is the result of the structure of the universe at its most basic level.
Things are as they are because that is the way they are.

Or God designs each snowflake individually.

People like Ken Miller argue that things are as they are because that is how God made them at the most basic level. The rest just naturally flows from a universe with elements in it that were created with the properties they have.
That God is a non-interfering God. He has just set things in motion.
I don't really have a problem with that type of god. It doesn't matter if that type of god exists or not. What is the difference between saying 'non-interfering god created everything' and 'everything just is'?

121. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #194952 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Neither link worked for me but I hunted it down:
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0020_Miller/talks/colbert-miller.mov

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194914 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 11:56 am

Steve,

One person asking for an alternate theory, another considering that the appearance of design, if there is no evolution, is evidence for a designer.

Yes, this is correct.
But it is incorrect.
I will unpackage so I do not come off as a creationist nutter.
Your assessment of the situation was correct.
Brian was asking for an alternate theory.
RtG was saying it looks designed so it must be designed. This is the incorrect part. It is not a theory.
I asked txp to provide me with the how and when of oil formation long ago. It is the same sort of argumentation. Don't defend ToE. It stands as a fully developed theory. It has mounds of evidence to support it and it has precise predictive powers. It is corroborated by all fields of science.
But we will let that stand to one side if there are errors in it. We will throw it out all together (not really).
An alternate theory needs to take its place that is as robust as the ToE.
Therein lies the problem for the opposition. There is no alternate theory. ID is not a Theory. Creationism is not a Theory. They are half baked ideas, but not Theories in the technical sense.
I hope that helps.

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194890 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

Steve,
What I mean is this:
If someone comes on here poking holes in the ToE then we agreed that it is completely flawed and throw it out.
But we need to replace it with something as evidenced, predictive and robust.
That is what we ask the ID/creationist for.
That is what Brian did.
He kept asking for an alternate Theory that works as well as ToE.
Of course the ToE is not really going away.
And of course there is no alternate Theory.
Pulling a BE makes this clear.
To me at least.

124. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194863 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 10:41 am

RtG was nothing but a troll from the start but he has proved useful.
hungarianelephant has given us a neat little summary:

Evolution theory is dead.

Yes, that was agreed upon yesterday.

Now may we please see your evidence for creationism. You said it was obvious, so this shouldn't be too difficult.

This is it.
Followed by a series of posts henceforth known as the 'Brian English maneuver'. This may be abreviated to 'BE'. As in, "Let's pull a BE on this cretin."

125. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194773 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 8:56 am

So if we had actually passed HIS test and been a good little adam'n'eve, we'd be free of arbitrary nastiness and therefore ignorant of the sweetness of joy.

phil rimmer, the problem here is that you are using logic and reason consistently. In the religious world logic and reason must only be used selectively. When they run into a problem magic takes over. This is because God is beyond 'reason'. So there is a reason for God being non-reasonable.
It all makes perfect sense. You just have to open your heart..blah, blah, blah...BORING.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194678 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 7:16 am

'I'm gonna miss frank. '

Frank will be back :)

Now I get it.
Frank Zappa.
I thought you were talking about me.
There are disadvantages to being paranoid narcissist.

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194644 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 6:04 am

Doesn't Dudeism allow for the Jesus?
Maybe not exactly the same Jesus as Bible Jesus but Jesus nonetheless.
Click, click, click.

Dudeism could also supply a cogent response to ID/creationism:
"Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion man."

128. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194635 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 5:48 am

pobalob

It currently seems to me that one side (the Darwinist view) lays their cards on the table during the game whilst the other side (Intelligent Design) refuses to reveal their hand whilst protesting that their hand is the winner.

Good call.
We will let them take the pot once they do show us their cards. And by cards I mean a full Theory in the scientific sense.
You hear that txp/clearwooter/ketchup/RtG? You have won! Evolution is all false. You get to claim victory once you show us the replacement Theory.
Go.

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194623 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 5:00 am

Poe's Law Alert: The Surgeon General has determined that taking this post seriously can severely affect your mental health.

Noooo! Say it isn't so!
I was so hoping that we finally had a decent replacement for the obviously flawed scientific theories regarding cosmology, geology, microbiology, plain old biology, palentology, etc., etc. blah, blah, blah.

You see the problem txp?
You need to come up with replacement theories that are not completely whacked out nutty. They need to all fit together and support each other and the observable evidence around us.
Magic isn't really allowed.
I know that may be a problem but if you allow some form of magic in then what is to prevent any form of magic creeping in?

130. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194612 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 4:17 am

This world is a stage where everbody play his short life play, then, how come we judge about massive death people or retarted children or people get sick and die without seeing their situation after they die?

I've seen what happens when things die.
They rot.
LOGIC - high five!

131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194611 by Frankus1122 on June 17, 2008 at 4:08 am

Good job Brian!
It looks like RtG has scuttled off without providing an answer.
If he comes back it will no doubt be after pressing the reset button.
Perhaps he has gone off to research (ha!).
If txp comes back I hope he answers my question about exactly how and when oil and natural gas were formed. It is important to have accurate sensible information which can be corroborated by other scientific disciplines.
I want this information so that I may teach students the truth about the way the world works.
It is important in the 'real world' because the real world functions on the back of science. Based on our understanding of how oil forms we look to particular geological features to help us find more of it. Our understanding of geology is based on the knowledge that the world is several billions of years old.
If this is incorrect, as txp believes, I need to know what the replacement theory is.
When the giant ice canopy fell and flooded the world where did it create deposits of oil? How did it create deposits of oil? How would geologists go about looking for new oil deposits? They would need to reject their assumptions about an old earth. Their current understanding is no longer valid in a young earth model. I need the details of the new Young Earth Geology Theory. It needs to have the predictive power of the old Theory. We need to find more oil.
If Teratonis is correct about peak oil the need for real geologists with an understanding of the structure of the earth will be increasingly more important.
On the other hand if we are in the end times we may not need to worry too much about oil. We had better look to the state of our souls.

Bottom line txp: I need an explanatory Theory. I can't just tell my students," That stuff we read about the oil being formed millions of years ago was all nonsense. Some guys I was talking to on the interweb said so."
So if RtG was unable to provide evidence of a designer perhaps you can do better.

132. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194414 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Goldy,

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

No, no, no, no.
God made man perfect in his image. Man sinned. Evil entered the world.
It is not God's fault.
Earthquakes and gays are essentially the same: the result of sin.
Although sometimes earthquakes are the result of gays more directly. God made some people gay because man is corrupted by his free choice to choose to have free choice before he actually had free choice.
No, wait a minute. That can't be right.
Gays are sinners because of Eve.
Earthquakes happen because the world is corrupted because of the original sin.
Extra gayness results in extra earthquakes.
No, that doesn't make any sense either.
God works in mysterious ways.

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194403 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 5:48 pm

MPhil,

I just stole it from Wikipedia. I was trying to contrast that definition with this one (also stolen from Wikipedia):

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

Much like a creationist theory.
Designer where are you?

134. Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence

Comment #194401 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 5:43 pm

rod-the-farmer:

Well, I am seriously considering running for public office in my county next elections.

I'd vote for you.
Our PM got rid of the national science advisor.
Probably too fact-y for him.

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194396 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 5:35 pm

RtG,
No evidence?
Just insults?
Do you live under a bridge?

136. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194393 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 5:32 pm

For the purposes of argument, we've agreed that evolution is false. So, without that obstruction, you can convince me of a designer.

I am with Brian. I am soo over that evolution thing. But I really need to hang my hat on another robust theory. And by theory I mean this definition of Theory:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact".

from Wikipedia.

So, RtG, I need stuff. Can you provide it?

137. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #194387 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Why couldn't you have just said this months ago David? It would have caused so much unecessary grief.
I suspected long ago that you couldn't possibly believe that your bad cheque incident was evidence of prayer answered. I went so far as to suggest you might be lying (if even just to yourself). Now you have confirmed it. Or perhaps you have just changed your mind because it is only now that you realize (or realise) the absurdity of your former position.

Frankus. I did. You were not listening. And logic is obviously not your strong point. I do believe that praying for £87.50, not telling anyone, and receving precisely that su, through three different sources by the end of the day is either an answer to prayer or a tremendous coincidence.

I don't understand what you are saying here.
You quoted a bit of the comment I made but neglected to include this:

'some people think that God covers bad cheques.' followed by: "Personally I think that is absurd and nothing to do with biblical Christianity."

We are in agreement then.

Perhaps logic isn't my strong point.
(Did you read that book MPhil suggested: Logic and Theism by my old logic professor J. H. Sobel?)
You say that it is absurd to think that god covers bad cheques; it has nothing to do with biblical Christianity. But wasn't the point of the whole story to prove that, for you, miracles come in the form of answered prayer, and the bad cheque incident was an example of answered prayer?
So, if I break it down for my feeble brain, I have this:
God answers prayer as evidenced by DR receiving 87 pounds (or 80- thanks urim; your post also needs answering). It is absurd to think God would answer prayer in the form of covering bad cheques.
You say it is absurd and that it is an example of answered prayer.
Is this something like your Evolution /YEC stance?
Usually people are better at hiding their cognitive dissonance.

I think your latest tact is 'god works in mysterious ways'.
Of course, the money came from someone who overheard you were in trouble, but because they live in the world and god has the whole world in his hands, it was god who enabled them to hear of your troubles and come up with the cash. God is responsible for everything so when you pray for something and it happens it is 'evidence' of his handiwork.
Only it isn't evidence at all.
To say that god is responsible because it is in him and through him we live is to say nothing. You tried to provide 'evidence' of the efficacy of prayer through your little story. In the end you have no evidence at all.

Oh, and just because I am such a nice guy: Dumbass!
More fodder.
You're welcome.

138. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194351 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm

You are a sinner. We all are.

I am not a sinner.
What does that even mean?
You left the realm of reason long ago.
No one here buys into your mythology.
Stop saying really dumb stuff.

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194336 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I just got back from dinner with my family. I mentioned that RtG found out Steve was gay. Dinner continued, more converstaion. I mentioned the new Hulk movie. My children said they saw it. I told them this was a new, different Hulk. My son asked, "Is it the Gay Hulk?"

Now I have images of mild mannered Steve Zara (who has been a bit testy lately) finally snapping. It turns out the new Gay Hulk is fueled by creationist drivel not radiation. The brain muscles bulge and the puny creationists are smashed by Gay Hulk's massive and terrifying blows of logic and reason.

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194301 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Oh dear. You really have to be a wind-up. Someone has to be having a joke.

I was thinking the same thing.
This cannot be serious:

We must fight all evil. Some of you do not realize you are evil while others are intentially evil. I am here to help you open your eyes to reality before it is too late.

It could be wooter. I believe clearwooter was too much to be real. This could be another manifestation of HIM.

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194256 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:54 pm

"touching the void"

Is that the story where the guy could not get a Boney-M song out of his head? Didn't he, in part, refusse to die because he did not want to go out with that song in his head?

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194251 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I always look at Podaar's with a smile at the happy couple

I commented before about how Gregg actually looked like me when he was holding his grandaughter. Now the resemblence is even more pronounced. And we both have good looking wives!

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194238 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm

phatbat:

EDIT for grammer

You might want to edit for spelling too:
"grammar"

sorry :)

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194229 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Dear RtG,
I have been teaching students that oil and natural gas formed millions of years ago. txpiper told me I was wrong to do this. I thought I had all the evidence I needed. The 'experts' all agreed and it seems as though all of the related fields of science corroborated the evidence provided.
I do not want to lead my students astray. I want them to know the truth.
Can you please provide some evidence that proves what you and txp say is true is actually true?
Please note that not all my students are Christians. Some of them are Buddhist and I think there is a student whose parents are Hindu. A number of them profess no belief in any god whatsoever. Do you have evidence that would cross these religious lines (like science does)?
Anxiously waiting your cogent reply.

145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194146 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I'm still reading but I came across this:

I approve of the new assertive Steve Zara, pressing creationists to explain why their claim of a higher standard of intelligence and credibility than those working in an area should be accepted.

In the same way one should require such people to present positive evidence as to their claims that, for example, the universe was created. No allowing them to run off into other topics or simply claim that there are "problems" in our explanations. The burden of proof is strongly upon them, they shouldn't be allowed to escape from it.

This is disconcerting. I am worried that txp has not provided evidence for me to pass on to my students.
I also read Steve say this is a serious issue. I agree. I am trying to provide the students in my care with the best education possible. Txp has said that the scientists who claim that oil was formed millions of years ago are working under a 'religious' dogma that won't allow them to interpret evidence in a supernatural way.
However, their ideas seem pretty well thought out and are corroborated by mounds of evidence as well as all other fields of science.

I really need to know if I should change the curriculum for my students. I willing to do this but I need some evidence.
Epeeist's post has made me less hopeful. ;(

146. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194125 by Frankus1122 on June 16, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Kardashovel,
How are you?
I was just thinking about you and the fact that you haven't been here in a while and poof! You show up.
Amazing coincidence. Didn't your ideas about the universe have something to do with the coincidences that are far too coincidental to be mere coincidences?

I am catching up on this thread. I still have about 4 or 5 pages to get through. I notice txp has a friend. Isn't that special (church lady voice).

I think I left off asking txp if he could provide a time as to when oil deposits were formed and the mechanism by which they were formed.
I have apparently been misinforming my students. I want to provide them with the best available information based on evidence.
I understand txp gave an approximate date for the Flood. So I guess he answered the time part. Now all I need is how and evidence.
Thanks in advance!
I'll need to keep reading to see if I have already been answered (crossing fingers).

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192573 by Frankus1122 on June 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Why isn't there a Center for Advanced Magic Research at my, or any, university?

I think there was a research group looking into paranormal phenomenon at a major university (MIT?). It ran for over 5 years. They shut it down recently because they just had no evidence of any paranormal activity.
I'm sorry I can't reference this. I can't even remember enough to do a good Google search; but I swear it's true. Trust me without evidence.
(I wouldn't).

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192449 by Frankus1122 on June 13, 2008 at 4:57 am

txpiper,
Thanks for your reply!
I am off to school so I only have a quick moment here (busy - gotta run).
I am still a bit confused.
I am not an expert on the development of oil and natural gas so I rely on the real experts - the ones that devote their lives to this kind of research. (I am not an expert on anything really but I can occasionally distinguish between a Picasso and a Braque, if I guess right).
You seem to indicate that I should tell the students that oil can be created by scientists in a lab in less than half an hour under the right conditions.
What do I tell them if they ask about how and when those conditions came about on our planet ?
Do you have some evidence I could provide them on this topic?

I was also a bit confused about this statement from you:

...you could apologize to your students on behalf of the scientific community for the occasions when their religious convictions delay research and development.

Were you talking about Christian scientists who refuse to do stem cell research?

Anxiously awaiting your cogent reply,
Frankus

149. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192353 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 8:40 pm

I will second secondsoprano and say:

Happy 25th birthday Cartomancer :)!

Although it is still June 12 here. You are still 24 where I am but you are not here, you are there where you are 25.

You are awesome and I am off to bed.

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192318 by Frankus1122 on June 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm

2. The moron asshole tyrant in the bible is an idiot savant somehow when it comes to molecular genetic engineering, like that retarded guy who can make beautiful clay animal sculptures.

Maybe he is like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon. Remember how he wasn't very smart at the beginning and then he got supersmart and then went back to retarded Charlie again. Maybe that is what happened to Godlie.