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

Comments by epeeist


151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194188 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #194179 by Steve Zara

All challenges creationism has put forward have been met. It is a lie.
To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli - "it isn't even wrong".

I presume that everyone has noted that RtG has done the standard fundie trick. Namely criticise evolution on the assumption that this validates creationism, thereby showing he knows as little about logic as he does about biology.

And in the same way as he has provided no evidence for the existence of a creator, never mind the cosmic Jewish zombie that he worships, he has provided no positive evidence for creationism either.

Why is this I ask? Two reasons immediately spring to mind. The first is that there isn't any evidence for creationism. Absolutely none.

The second is that RtG really doesn't have a clue apart from what his pastor tells him. He is the archetypal "one book in his library" person. Too stupid to know he is stupid. So even if there was any evidence for creationism he would be incapable of producing it.

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194155 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #194147 by ReceivedTheGift

Regarding the fact that Spartina anglica evolved naturally from Spartina Ãâ€" townsendii; this was a process of microevolution, not macroevolution. Spartina anglica contained no new genetic information and in fact had less usable genetic information as pieces of it's DNA were now corrupted.
You sir are the most idiotic person I have come across on this site. What you are saying is that Dr. Zara has no idea what he is talking about. Given that he has both a first degree and a research degree in biology and has done post-doctoral work in the subject I would rather think that he has somewhat more clue than the pig-ignorant nebbish that you have shown yourself to be. Personally I doubt you have the acumen to actually understand his blog in the first place.

Oh, and three strikes and you are out.

No evidence for your god, and anything that is claimed without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence.

153. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194149 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz

(I'm anticipating lots of "on your own head be it" type remarks!)
Okay, I'll go first - on your own head be it ;-)

If you do decide to accept and the topic is on creationism then I would make sure that your opponent sticks to the brief. Criticising the Big Bang (unlikely) and evolution (very likely) isn't defending creationism. You want positive, evidential support to be presented. I know I keep waffling on about the burden of proof, but keep them on target and don't let them descend to discussing the "problems" of evolution.

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194136 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm

omment #194133 by ReceivedTheGift

Adhering to the science methodology of how you make curcumstantial evidence or inferences become fact, how would you know that I actually grew wings? Any witnesses to this? Too many assupmtions. Too many "mights" "may be's" "could have's".

You "could have" chosen to answer the questions that were put to you. Instead you try your usual evasions and attempt to shift the burden of proof elsewhere.

Strike two!

One more strike and you are out. Answer the question! Show us some evidence that the universe was created and that your god created it. Otherwise accept the opprobrium that will be heaped on you.

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194131 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #194121 by Kardashovel


I dunno... it's possible, but it seems a bit of a coincidence that cultures on five continents would all choose the same type of disaster to exaggerate. Why not fire, or drought?
We don't tend to get much drought here in Manchester and it tends to put a dampener on fires.

Have you looked for fire and drought myths? The obvious fire myth is that of Muspellheim and the destruction of the world at Ragnarok.

Sea level rose by over 100m in a relatively short period of time. Assuming the ancient populations clustered on the coasts, near river deltas, they would see their homes consumed by the flood waters and the ocean.
I don't see we are contradicting each other here. The major thing to decide is whether the flood myths were roughly contemporary.

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194119 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #194109 by ReceivedTheGift


Good Day. I was thinking. It is becomming very expensive to travel these days. Has any headway been made in science which can decrease the time for Macroevolution? Just think how great it would be if we could all grow wings and fly.
Isn't it time that you actually answered the questions that Brian English and I put to you?

Let's see some evidence for this creator of yours.

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194118 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #194104 by Kardashovel


It is noteworthy that many cultures around the world have flood myths. I suspect that the end of the last ice age is responsible for this phenomenon.
Possibly. However, one could also posit that it is because people tend to live near where there is a ready supply of water. Plus the fact that flood plains tend to have high fertility.

All reasonable conjectures. The next step would of course to be start looking at some evidence.

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194101 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Comment #194097 by Kardashovel


Keep it up and RD will be able to charge admission.
The question then is whether we want someone like Mark Mathis on the door turning away undesirables...

159. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #194096 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #194091 by al-rawandi

Suicide bombing is largey an issue of Nationalism, specifically with respect to Tamil Eelam. Lebanon saw the same issue, in addition to Hezbollah there were Christian suicide bombers as well. Robert Pape does the best research on the topic, plenty of statistics, and a complete listing of all suicide attacks and the religion and profile of the bombers as well as the targets.
See - I said you were educational ;-)

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194095 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Comment #194085 by Kardashovel

Y'all are making this stuff up. Admit it.


< petulant four year voice >It wasn't our fault, we didn't start it. It was that txpiper and his friend receivedTheGift< /petulant four year voice >

Ice Canopy

161. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194084 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #194076 by al-rawandi

Look at you gentlemen. I am constantly amazed at the patience some people here show the benighted hoardes who constantly cycle through this place. I guess I don't fall under "helpful" or "educational" in my approach.
I can see "helpful" isn't really your thing.

Educational? Absolutely, even when you say things I disagree with.

162. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #194079 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #193404 by rutan668

But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.
I think fizhburn has covered this. My understanding is that there is some dispute as to whether the Tamils are atheist or Hindu, but I wouldn't want to press this.

A couple of things I would dispute though. Are you certain that the Tamils are committing their terrorist attacks because of their atheism? Or are they doing it because of their nationalism.

The second thing I would want to argue against is the idea of an "atheist philosophy". How can a simple disbelief in the existence of gods be called a philosophy?

163. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194068 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 11:37 am

Comment #194061 by MPhil


I have been strongly influenced by epeeist on this. Sometimes, with the best intentions, we let such people run rings around us. We end up pandering to them, answering every question.
That makes sense... sounds right. Still, somehow, epeeist manages not to "lose his cool" over the irrational people coming here.
I wouldn't want to lose the educational aspect of this site. But it does mean that we educate the educable, not the people who are solely here to vent their ideologies and do not read what is presented to them in the first place.

The only things that these people need to be taught is that bifurcation is a fallacy, perceived "problems" with evolution do not mean that ID/creationism is valid. Secondly, they need to be made aware that if they do have claims then the burden of proof is upon them.

As for losing my cool - I have been taken a leaf out of Shayne Dark's book. As he says, the fundies tend to be fairly sensitive to "bad language" and it can be a useful provocational technique. However, I can't claim to be any where near as imaginative with it as the Rev. Dark or Diacanu.

164. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194009 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #194004 by al-rawandio Catholics still burn witches or torture Jews into fake conversions?But Catholics aren't real Christians are they ;-)

165. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194001 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 9:19 am

Comment #193978 by ketch22


If you really want to exercise your mind, hop on over to access research network www.arn.com where real intelligent people debate without ridicule.
OK, here is a comment that I am sure you are going to dismiss as ridicule.

Anyone who can put together a web site with as poor accessibility as that one has wants shooting.

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193929 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #193917 by Mark Smith


So at 20 years per generation that gives 800 years from creation until the earth was full.


Well d'uh. Why do you think he needed a flood?

167. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #193887 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #193869 by Cartomancer

I must say this is not surprising, research has pointed in this direction for a while now.
I tend to handwave a bit on this "there is sufficient research to show that homosexuality has a biological basis". Fortunately nobody has ever called me on it.

Besides this are there any publicly available papers that you could point me (and others) to?

168. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193880 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 7:30 am

I dropped MPhil a note querying whether this guy was a fake or not. Seems I needn't have bothered.

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193786 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 3:37 am

Comment #193773 by Steve Zara


Oh dear. I am reduced to crying with laughter. I just don't know where to start. I didn't believe I would ever come across ideas nuttier than those of wooter, with his "God designs each snowflake", but boy did I underestimate humanity.


Absolutely.

What I want to know is how far above the earth was this ice canopy. Given that it should be fairly easy to calculate how thick it would need to be to provide all the water that is necessary for the flood. Also, how much energy would be released when this amount of water fell to earth.

I used to live in St. Helens. In the Pilkington glass museum that had some ultra-pure glass that was used to make fibre optic cable. Even then there were problems with attenuation. How much sunlight would an ice crystal canopy let through?

170. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193776 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 am

Comment #193772 by Quetzalcoatl

But there is no atheist creed! That was the whole point. How can I be defending a creed by saying that there is no creed? That is ridiculous.
He has never managed to define the "creed" or "tenets" that atheists supposedly adhere to.

Like all his posts the aim seems to be to antagonise rather than anything else.

171. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193770 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #193765 by Steve Zara on June


You truly are an awful person, David. You are now reduced to insulting someone who clearly has a deep understanding of philosophy (unlike you).
And after his comment one has to wonder how much he understood of the Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dundee.

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193734 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 1:11 am

Comment #193626 by ReceivedTheGift


All Macroevolution inferences are based on faith. Again, present me with one scientific proven fact which undeniably proves Macroevolution. Please leave out the "may be's" the "might's" the "possibly's" the "could be's" ....
Chaps, you have let this frothing-at-the-mouth fundie define the discourse.

As I suggested he just came back with his reset button pressed and tried to restart the debate as though nothing had happened.

He has been shown the link to Theobald's site so he knows there is evidence for macro-evolution.

What he has not done is provide evidence for a creator or designer. Burden of proof - its all on him.

So RtG. Let's have some evidence of a creator/designer. I asked you before and you didn't answer, Brian English has subsequently pressed you on the matter. As a result you were given a first strike.

Now I am willing to be magnanimous, I won't call another strike unless there is nothing in your next post that gives us some evidence.

173. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193394 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #193383 by Corylus

Maybe Lane Craig too.
So this would be part of his "objective morality"?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

I have just bought Bernecker and Dretske's "Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology" on MPhil's recommendation. I am having an interesting time in reconciling some of the material with some of the online material of Paul Churchland but I haven't got very far as yet. I have a suspicion that "properly basic belief" might be one of the things that should disappear as a consequence of eliminative materialism.

174. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193380 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #193369 by ketch22


1. God makes sense of the universe's origin: both philosophically and scientifically it can be argued that the universe had a beginning. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause... the universe began to exist... therefore the universe has a cause. We know the cause must "not" have a cause itself or a beginning because it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes. We know that it must be timeless because it created time and we know that it must be immaterial because it created matter.
  1. Quantum vacuum fluctuations - no causality required.
  2. If time began with the universe, before does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
  3. You say that infinite regress is impossible, but you want to stop at term 1 of the series, your god created the universe but nothing created it. However you offer no reason for this. Why not stop at term 0, why should the universe need a cause if your god doesn't?

2. God makes sense of the universe's complexity: In the last 35 years, scientists have come to the conclusion that the big bang was not some chaotic event, but rather an event that was well organized and required a lot of information. This points to an intelligent designer.
Your first and last sentences are obvious cases of begging the question. The obfuscation between entropy and information. The entropy at the Big Bang was actually very low.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values: Are all values evolved from nature or from what we have created in society to make it work? Isn't the holocast wrong even though the Nazi's say it isn't? Just because one group of people or even 1 person says something is OK, aren't there certain things such as rape, murder, etc... that we just know to be wrong no matter what somebody else believes. This is objective morality and it had to come from somewhere outside of nature.
So demonstrate an "objective moral value" and explain why it is objective. How can you tell what is objectively moral?

4. God makes sense of the resurrection: I could spend hours debating this subject, but there is significant historical proof that Jesus rose in 3 days.
Some actual documentary proof that Jesus existed would be a good start. Let us see your "significant historical truth".

5. God can be immediately experienced: "Properly Basic Belief" is a philosophical idea that we can only truly know what we truly experience ourselves. Our belief that the external world exists is "properly basic" as we can't prove that it does, but it is entirely rational that we "know" it does because of our own experiences in that world. Same with God. Those who have had an experience with God, know that this is an experience with God and nobody from the outside can tell us otherwise. It is appropriately grounded in our own experience.
A follower of Plantinga are you?

175. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193371 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #193367 by Theo

I can tentatively conclude that life arose by intelligence.

A much wiser person than I said "if an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present."
Zara, I cannot prove that a phenomenon will never be explained naturally just as you cannot prove the non-existence of God.
But using the tentative methods of science we can advance the hypothesis that gods do not exist. This is falsifiable given substantive evidence.

176. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193335 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 11:30 am

Comment #193332 by davelynch

A Christian posted on an Inverness website called christianstogether, saying that he stole and destroyed a copy of the Koran from a local prison. Other christians on the site condoned this action, saying that the 'thiefs' motivation (to save people being from satans influence) made his action okay.
If the post is still there then I would prefer that provide a link to it. Otherwise this is simply your unsubstantiated word.

177. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193329 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 10:56 am

Comment #193326 by Paula Kirby

And, talking of quoting me, I see that you have lifted my report of last week's UHI theology lecture and put it on your own website (http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=114100) without acknowledgement of where it came from - despite 2 requests from a guest on your site to provide a link.
So copyright theft is fine, presumably providing you are only stealing from atheists.

178. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #193304 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #193262 by DamnDirtyApe


Can we make one of the RDF objectives to be bigger than the TBF?
And there was me thinking it was the Blair Foundation for God.

As a free gift when you join you get a complementary snozzcumber.

179. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193301 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #193297 by Mark Smith


Does your experience involve anything more than strong conviction, regularly reinforced by worship, prayer and mutual assurance from other believers?
Perhaps he got his 72 virgins early.

180. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193294 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 8:11 am

Comment #193284 by ketch22

You sound bitter
Oh for fucks sake, what is it with people being accused of bitter? Is the mot de jour or something, I have had it from clearthinker and receivethegift and now border collie is being accused of it.
Isn't the "little world view" really belong to those who can't conceive of a creator and that this is all there is? Isn't that limiting mankind?
Look you stupid cunt. Rather than just whining about the possibilities that we might have made mistakes in our theories why don't you actually present some evidence that your creator exists?

181. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #193255 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 4:33 am

Comment #193251 by rutan668


It's good that this Peter McKnight pointed out some of Dawkins's many inconsistencies - and even better that they were posted on his website.
This is rather a blanket statement. Do you want to enumerate these inconsistencies?

182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193241 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 3:44 am

Comment #193233 by Quetzalcoatl

From reading RTG's posts he seems to be an evasion specialist. I don't think there will be any straight answers coming from him.
Agreed. 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.

183. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193236 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 3:27 am

Comment #193227 by scottishgeologist


Interestingly, certain churches and other outfits DO take a stronger line on Sabbath observance and will actually close down web sites. Now this may sound fundie extreme, but give them their due, they are practising what they preach. At least they are consistent. Try these 2:

F P Church: www.fpchurch.org.uk
Well they obviously forgot today, it still seems to be up.

Is this a mortal sin? Will they be consigned to the pit along with us atheists?

For DAR's benefit. The above was a joke.

184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193231 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 3:13 am

And so RtG disappears without providing us with any evidence for creation or acknowledging that he has been provided with evidence for macroevolution.

Let's be charitable and assume that it is late where he is and he had to go to bed. Given that it will presumably be Sunday when he wakes up is he, do you think, going to go to church and ask his pastor for some answers to our questions? Or will he not raise the fact that he has been to this site because it might be construed as a sin? What odds he will just come back with his reset button pressed and try to start the conversation all over again as though all previous posts were null and void?

Let's have no more whining and evasion from these people. If they are claiming creation then let them provide some evidence. No running off into claiming that there are "problems" with "Darwinism".

185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193220 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 12:52 am

Comment #193219 by ReceivedTheGift


Are you INFERRING that I have not read this before? That's your problem. You base so much of what you take as fact by accepting INNFERENCES as facts.
Read what before? You wouldn't be referring to the Theobald link would you?

I am still waiting for some demonstration of the evidence for creation by the way - strike 1.

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193215 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 12:24 am

Comment #193209 by ReceivedTheGift

I thought you keep stating that this forum is about Evolution not Creation. Why then do you keep asking me to show you evidence of a Creator. Why don't you show me evidence of Macroevolution? The purpose of this forum.
The purpose of this forum is rational argument, not solely evolution.

You came here claiming the putative Jesus as part of the trinity that supposedly created the universe. You are being asked to validate that claim. You have been asked several times and have not done so. As a result I am going to invoke a move that Dr. Benway (one of the contributors to the site) suggested. It derives from your game of baseball, namely three strikes and you are out.

To keep the discussion tight - please provide evidence that the universe was created.

Oh, and macroevolution? See my previous post.

187. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #193210 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 12:19 am

Comment #193203 by Sparafucil

McCain voted FOR the Defense of Marriage Act. He voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Admendment. Don't confuse the two. McCain is not the moderate the media would have you believe.
Nice little article in today's Observer detailing some of the problems that evangelicals have with McCain - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/15/johnmccain.uselections2008

188. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193208 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 12:16 am

Comment #193206 by ReceivedTheGift

Macroevolution?
Macroevolution?
Macroevolution?
Too easy - read it and weep - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

However, answer some questions rather than constantly evading the questions that are asked of you.

189. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193207 by epeeist on June 15, 2008 at 12:14 am

Comment #193196 by ReceivedTheGift

Jesus is the Truth and The Way.
You haven't shown any evidence for a creator which is the first of the questions I asked of you.

All you are doing is assuming the truth of my lemma 5 without any evidence and assuming this validates all the previous lemmas.

Take it in turn. First show there was a creator, once we get past that step then we can talk about deities.

190. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193187 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Comment #193173 by Brian English

Don't change the subject you dishonest git. I'm not talking about evolution.
Exactly. Whenever a creationist is challenged to provide evidence for a creator all they do is whine and try to attack the ToE.

The default position is this: if an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present.

So pony up some evidence of your creator, and to be more exact why this creator is Yahweh and not Atum or Bert the Magic Penguin (TM Shayne Dark)

191. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193176 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Comment #193168 by ReceivedTheGift

How amazing it truly is. Anyone shrunk down to size with the ability to walk through one of those port holes would ask the most obvious question. WHO made/created this?
The first sentence is correct. The second and third sentences are simply begging the question.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#begging

We just have to keep them in our prayers and release it to the Lord.
Which Lord would that be? There are so many of them - http://www.godchecker.com/

And any way - you still owe me some answers, here they are if you can't remember -http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page142#192734

192. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193071 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Comment #193058 by Quetzalcoatl


Yisrayl Hawkins, the leader of a Texan sect, actually predicted the end of the world for two days ago. We're living on borrowed time. Now might be a good time for a cup of tea!
Bugger that for a game of soldiers.

If the world is ending in a couple of days then I have a nice bottle of Bunnahabhain to finish off.

193. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193067 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #193003 by Quine

It is reasonable to postulate that pockets of organic chemicals existed in contexts where energy was flowing from a more concentrated form into waste heat, and the waste heat had a place to go away.
You get organic molecules all over the place. There are large numbers of them floating free in space, easily to characterise by their spectra (Microwave gives the most specific results). A slightly outdated list is here - http://aramis.obspm.fr/mol/list-mol.html

There is enough ethanol in space to make 300,000 pints of beer for every person on Earth every day for the next billion years.

And this report from Imperial College gives details of the nucleobases uracil and xanthine being found in the Murchison meteorite - http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_13-6-2008-14-44-59?newsid=38534

So, no hassles with catalysis on zeolites or ice for molecular formation. However, it looks as though there might have been the possibility of a kick start. And even if this isn't the case then it certainly shows that precursors to RNA are not exactly unknown in the rest of the universe.

194. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192932 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #192920 by txpiper

I'm good enough with AIG's date. Whatever it was, it is 1656 years after Adam.
I do like someone who is good with figures. Notice how txpiper has the courage of his convictions and gives us an exact date for the flood.

Realise how, when we starting picking off the arguments for the flood he is going to start shifting Adam's date about.

195. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192894 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #192886 by Steve Zara

You will note as well that Paula did not threaten me with physical harm or everlasting damnation for disagreeing with her
Whereas if I disagreed with SWMBO...

I now coach two pairs of girls from different families. The first family is one guy, his wife and four daughters. The second is one guy, wife and two daughters. We fathers occasionally compare notes as to what it is like to be the only man in a family of women. There are definite conclusions as to the number of bathrooms you need, especially when daughters reach teenager-hood.

196. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192892 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #192834 by rod-the-farmer

Good grief. What bafflegab. And this guy was in charge ? Did he display this sort of nonsense when running for office ?
Not when he was running for office.

Once he was in office, then yes. Google some of the antics he and Cherie got up to with Cherie's life style advisor Carole Caplin.

197. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192889 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 6:29 am

Comment #192808 by agn

Faith is to eradicate deaths from malaria???
Oh absolutely. Of course it is only doing this so the policies of Tony's new best friend can contribute to their death by HIV and AIDS.

198. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #192883 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 6:10 am

I was in Manchester treating my camera to a new lens when I came across this lot. The dismissal of the prosecution has hopefully made people a little more adventurous.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/sets/72157605608780481/

199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192875 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 5:29 am

Comment #192853 by Paula Kirby

Steve Zara: Paula. I am very sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you. I hope it is going to be in an interesting way.

Steve, it is always interesting when you disagree with me! No apology required, especially when I'm venturing into areas about which I only have the most rudimentary knowledge.
The thing about this site is that people and ideas bounce off each other. I note that Al-Rawandi raised something that MPhil raised going back to somebody else talking about memes.

This is why I find it so laughable that somebody like RtG can claim that we are small minded and bound to a particular set of ideas. As was obvious he had swallowed the pap fed to him by his pastor without thinking. One can see the pastor claiming lots of evidence for the existence of Jesus and his congregation nodding in agreement. The authoritarian nature of the arrangement ensures that they will not doubt the claim nor will they go check that it has some truth to it.

200. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192801 by epeeist on June 14, 2008 at 1:30 am

Comment #192787 by Goldy

:-D
28 minutes:Penalty: New Zealand 20-6 England
:-(
Ah well, I suppose they have to make up for the cricket somehow.

I see from RtG's registration that this was his first visit and that he hasn't read TGD. The question really is whether he has read anything apart from some tracts that his pastor gave him. He obviously didn't even know his bible particularly well.

Ignorance I can understand. I take beginners who know nothing about fencing apart from what they have seen on "The Spiderwick Chronicles" and the like all the time. There is an asymmetric but mutual learning experience as I relieve them of their ignorance.

I can't understand the likes of RtG though. With all the books published in a year, with the whole of the Internet available to him he is comfortable in retaining his ignorance, in not stepping outside the bounds defined by his ideology.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next