Comments by Quetzalcoatl

2501. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179615 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Colwyn-

it doesn't sound like an impressive Transformer.

2502. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179592 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I'm disappointed to learn that the "ironman" does not involve flying metal suits.

2503. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179573 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm

How long is an Ironman? Longer than a marathon?

2504. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #179446 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 8:57 am

Irate-

Steve's blog can be found here: http://zarbi.livejournal.com/

2505. God seekers go public

Comment #179409 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 8:13 am

Konquererz-

I agree. It's hard to imagine what experiments you could do to confirm that something is irreducibly complex, and therefore designed.

Annabanana-

I'll keep my fingers crossed. ;)

2506. God seekers go public

Comment #179398 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 7:58 am

Annabanana-

you mean you're not already on drugs? Huh. You learn something new every day.

2507. God seekers go public

Comment #179390 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 7:45 am

Philip-

I'm afraid you have been channeling Satan. You forgot what we were taught in school- "Kids! Say no to Satan!"

Or something like that, anyway.

2508. God seekers go public

Comment #179386 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 7:33 am

Philip-

technically Dembski and Behe WOULD qualify as peers.

And what Ice Age? Everyone knows the evidence for Ice Ages is a lie created by Satan to make us believe that the world is older than 6,000. Open your eyes, man!

2509. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179259 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 1:31 am

Brian-

Do you mean Clover as in the plant, or the brand of butter? I'm not sure which is more disturbing.....

2510. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179248 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 am

txpiper-

Selection is not a discriminating process or a mysterious, complicated force. It is not a partner with mutations. It is organisms dying in an environment that they cannot survive in. That's it. All the rest of it is hype.

This is total nonsense. You have morphed selection into fairy godmother.

Is it more nonsensical than the notion of the Anti-Christ?

You're reverting to argument from incredulity, which really doesn't accomplish anything around here. Have you looked at ANY of the papers that Calilasseia went to all that trouble to list for you? I doubt it.

2511. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178917 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 8:20 am

Irate_atheist-

I think I see Artful's argument. It's quite good.

1) Humans make mistakes.
2) Therefore humans are imperfect.
3) The Bible says that humans are imperfect.
4) Therefore the Bible is correct.
5) Therefore God exists.

It's simple, really, for the appropriate definition of simple.

2512. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178906 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 8:07 am

A thought is not one and the same thing as the physical / material represetation of it.

Just repeating the assertion doesn't mean others will accept it.

Hence, when we make spelling mistakes or typos the "word" or "thought" that we intended may be different from its actual, black and white (or whatever) representation of it. The message is independent of the medium. Do you see my point?

Nope, that's to do with people not being able to spell. That's more to do with language, not the mind/brain "question".

2513. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178816 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 5:23 am

Rian-

I thought you wrote the blog in response to this actually :-)

actually I wrote it in light of the discussion on another post of my blog! Apparently it's the topic of the moment.

2514. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178807 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 5:05 am

Artful-

There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known.

Then how can you know that your interpretation is any more valid than another? You can't.

Ironically, I recently wrote a blog post on this very subject. This discussion is an excellent example.

2515. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178802 by Quetzalcoatl on May 12, 2008 at 4:54 am

Txpiper-

I don't see context as an issue

You must have fun at Bible Study.

2516. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178485 by Quetzalcoatl on May 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Artful-

I notice you Dodged the rest of Epeeist's post. Shocking.

2517. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178427 by Quetzalcoatl on May 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

Txpiper-

Calilasseia,

I'm afraid you're caught up in the attempt to morph selection into something that it simply is not. I think you are also somewhat out of date.

I literally had to stifle my laughter here. Calilasseia knows a LOT about this.

In my view, as it relates to mutations, these are much ado about nothing. I don't know of anyone who resists the idea of speciation, or microevolution, adaptation and selection for that matter. These are all indisputable

Huh? Mutation is one of the mechanisms by which all of the above occur. How can it be "much ado about nothing".

Incidentally- have you read Rev's latest comment yet? That'll teach you to actually read your links in future.

You'r reminding me more and more of Seeker_Of_Truth. He also got stuffed in debate, largely by the links he posted.

2518. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178403 by Quetzalcoatl on May 11, 2008 at 11:00 am

txpiper-

I haven't advocated any particular belief. I've only questioned the conventional ones. Right now, I think it is important to focus on the accepted "mechanisms for change".

You remind me of Seeker_Of_Truth.

If you're genuinely interested in learning, check out some of the papers Calilasseia named.

2519. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178103 by Quetzalcoatl on May 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Diacanu-

and if he's not present in Hell, then he can't know what is going on in Hell. Therefore he isn't omniscient either.

2520. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177971 by Quetzalcoatl on May 10, 2008 at 4:50 am

I notice that ALL of Riverrun's posts on this thread have now disappeared! This is bloody ridiculous!

2521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177670 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Steveroot-

my knowledge on this is limited, but couldn't it be passed on to offspring in the form of the genetic template for immune systems that, for instance, produced higher levels of "basic antibodies"?

2522. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177618 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2008 at 11:20 am

Txpiper-

Well, I will grant you this. That is about the most novel treatment of the problem of stasis that I've ever heard. What would you say has changed about them?

On reflection, I could have phrased my point better, but it is still valid. There have been minor changes, such as the Indian gavial crocodile, which has a specialised narrow snout for catching fish.

In any event, evolution still occurs at the genetic level, the most obvious example being the adaptation of the immune system to new diseases. Mutations that cause changes in the body shape will still occur, but if environmental conditions are such that the mutation does not convey any particular selection advantage over "normal" crocodiles, it is less likely that the mutation will become a fixed trait.

2523. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177608 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

Hah, Humphrys was completely wrong-footed by Dawkins' question, wasn't he? His attempt to answer it wasn't very convincing, either.

Star spangled eagle-

the British were going to allow American independence until they threw all their tea into the sea. After that, it was WAR!

2524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177486 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2008 at 7:08 am

Txpiper-

are not the kind of things that are going to achieve even modest structural alterations

Structural alterations are not synonymous with evolution. A creature can evolve without any significant changes in its phenotype- crocodiles and alligators are a good example of this. Their body shape has not changed for millions of years, but that does not mean that they are not still evolving.

2525. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177373 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2008 at 1:47 am

He said that young Muslims operated in a different environment. "Being religious is a way that you show you are different, that you are proud of your heritage. One of the ways young Muslims assert their identity is by being more observant than their parents

This is interesting. It could be possible that the next generation of Muslims might assert their identities by being less observant than their parents.

2526. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177018 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 1:14 pm

In this lecture I want to give a personal perspective on Faith in Britain today. And I do so with humility

Anyone who SAYS they're talking with humility is unlikely to be very humble.

No one generates their own faith: it always comes to us through the goodness, example and insight of others: that is the meaning of tradition and the roots of this tradition lie in the goodness, example and insight of our Lord Jesus, God's Word made flesh, the Jewish tradition on which he draws and the Christian tradition which he creates by his risen presence.

I can name some other religions that might disagree with this.

Christ is the Lord of human time, active in all of human history.

Er, no he isn't. Ask the Sumerians.

One of the aims of the Christian religion is to create and foster a culture and society in which human beings flourish and God is glorified by his presence in a holy people. Because the Word becomes flesh and makes his home among us, the human community is to become a dwelling place for God: that's the Christian vision of society and it is why the Gospel must find a dwelling place in the social and cultural order.

And by "dwelling place" he means shape and dominate it.

and we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith and its powerful contribution to the common good

What contribution is this?

Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in? I usually find that the God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don't believe in either. I simply don't recognise my faith in what is presented by these critics as Christian faith.

No true Scotsman.

God is why the world is at all, the goodness, truth and love that flows into an astonishingly complex and beautiful cosmos, and we are the part of that cosmos, consciously and freely open to goodness, truth and love; and we are frustrated when this openness is blocked. We are designed for ultimate meaning and purpose, unrestricted truth and love: that is why Julian Barnes, atheist though he may declare himself, 'misses' God. God is at the heart of every person. And until that is acknowledged, we will always feel his absence.

What rubbish.

The challenge confronting the Church today is, as always, how best to communicate the richness and newness of the Gospel message to the people of our country

Newness? It's 2000 years old!

2527. Faith in Britain today

Comment #176993 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 12:34 pm

This pompous blowhard. This was the guy talking about Frankenstein half-human half-animal embryos regarding stem cell research. Well, let's see what he has to say.

2528. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #176915 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 10:36 am

Hmm. Another Expelled review that slates the film. Anybody would think it was of poor quality.

2529. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #176909 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 10:29 am

Tezcatlipoca-

I deny Quetzlcoatl. A plumeed flying serpent? Ridiculous!

Try denying the bolt of lightning I've just sent your way.

2530. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176895 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 9:23 am

Clearmind-

where did you cut and paste that from? Most of it was spelled correctly, bravo to you.

Philip wants to know- Do you drink tea?

2531. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176888 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 9:05 am

_riverrun_-

I think Al already mentioned about the link in an earlier comment- 176489 (298), and admitted that he didn't post it when he should have. Is that the one you mean?

2532. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176875 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 8:04 am

Tezcatlipoca-

fine, but don't kill him. If you send jaguars again, they're only to tear off TWO limbs. I'll let you choose which ones.

2533. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176872 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 7:59 am

Hungarianelephant-

I don't want to have to smite you, but I will if you send that memo.

2534. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176866 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 7:50 am

Hungarianelephant-

No. The way they're behaving, if one of them supports the idea of winning the Premiership, the other will probably push for Liverpool to be relegated in the 08/09 season.

2535. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176854 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 7:18 am

Hungarianelephant-

it's all part of Liverpool's strategy. We're solidifying our position in the top few by consistently finishing fourth every year. Soon we will make our bid for the title, and Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United will tremble with fear.

You'll see. You'll ALL see...

2536. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176852 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 7:07 am

What's with all the Liverpool-fan-bashing today? We're not a bad lot!

2537. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176849 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 7:00 am

Al-rawandi-

Liverpool fans are some cross between Kamikazes, Hells Angels, and al-Qaeda.

Thanks for that!

2538. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176839 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 6:37 am

irate_atheist-

Well, I'm Spartacus!

No you're not, you're Gladys.

2539. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176820 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 5:53 am

Sounds like you guys need to drink some more tea. Then your posts will make more sense!

2540. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176762 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 1:10 am

Windweaver-

Al calling Chomsky a nit-wit is mild compared to _riverrun_ calling Fanusi a gimp and a neo-nazi. If anyone is losing credibility, it is him.

2541. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176758 by Quetzalcoatl on May 8, 2008 at 12:59 am

Chato-

I have to say that I basically agree with Richard despite the fact that I know spirit is real. As a former atheist my views were in line with Richard's until I discovered irrefutably that spirit (not God) does exist

Excellent. How do you know that?

I believe the same thing applies to spirit although I am not sure if it can be detected or not - although I belive it may be possible to do so.

So if spirit may not be able to be detected, how do you know anything about it? What makes you so sure that it is real?

2542. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176538 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm

_Riverrun_-

Quetzalcoatl: you've read the entire debate. When you publish a full list of slanders for both sides, I will take you seriously, as said before. You happily put your hands over your eyes when someone threatens physical violence but can't contain your self-righteous condemnation of calling someone a 'gimp'

Are you perhaps there referring to Fanusi saying that if you said these things to him in person you would have two black eyes? More of a statement, than a threat, I thought. If you had repeatedly insulted me in such a fashion, I would certainly be thinking something similar.

I'm not interested in jumping through a succession of hoops in order to be taken seriously by you, because it strikes me as not being worth the effort. If I see something that offends me, I comment on it. If I see repeated unprovoked insults against another poster, I comment on it. If that means you consider me self-righteous, so be it. I don't honestly give a shit what you think of me one way or another.

2543. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176524 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 2:39 pm

_riverrun_

I had written I don't debate him he's a neo-Nazi, you may have a point. However I didn't, so you don't.

Oh, don't be ashamed to stand by your comments. You said:

I don't debate neo-nazis. I don't debate your gimp.

By putting them together you as good as said that Fanusi was a "neo-nazi" in addition to being a "gimp". This was undoubtedly your intention, don't insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise.

He can behave exactly as he likes, as can his gimp

What is the point of this repetitive provocation? I honestly don't see it.

2544. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176514 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Al-rawandi-

Read and Replied.

2545. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176504 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 2:00 pm

_riverrun_-

I won't discuss these issues with your gimp, for one simple reason. I've read many of his posts over quite some time, and his points on here regarding Chomsky and Harris are totally fucking retarded. He must accept that I'm straight too, I've no problem with his solicitations - I'm a hot guy, but not my thing, no hard feelings.

I don't debate neo-nazis. I don't debate your gimp.

What the hell is up with this? What has Fanusi done to be talked about like this? You don't agree with him, you don't want to debate him, fine, don't. But there's no call for spewing pointless and offensive vitriol like this. You certainly have no grounds to complain about Al Rawandi being offensive when you make statements like the above.

2546. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176413 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 9:19 am

Clearmind-

Irate and Al rawandi, why don't you play outside on the beach beaching each other

Are you saying that Irate and Al Rawandi are whales? Or is "beaching each other" some kind of euphemism? I shudder to think.

2547. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176400 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 8:44 am

Podaar-

Jog down to the US, we (aperantly) have 300 billion people now

Think how many there must be in China. No wonder they instituted a one-child policy.

2548. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176386 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 8:16 am

Seeker-

I believe I have received what I came here for. Every once in a while I need to take a pulse and see if the human mind is still capable of the high levels of self-deception that I remember from my last investigation into the matter.

I think we can all safely say that yes, you're still deceiving yourself. Your evasiveness and wilful ignorance is truly a marvel to behold, albeit a marvel that I am glad I am a considerable distance from.

You speak as if you are leaving, but I think you will be back, since you seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that you have, in fact, been winning the debate. Alas, t'is not so.

You have been most entertaining, but sadly not in the way that you had intended.

2549. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176374 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 8:07 am

Podaar-

Uuuuh, I think you mean million. Yes?

I'm now less surprised that he has such difficulty with the age of the Universe.

2550. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176366 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 8:00 am

Irate-

don't threaten me with your wife! She will be no match for the power of my Divine Wind (a power that could be interpreted several ways- pick the favourable one).

Philip-

thank you for defending me. Those subbies were a dreadful mistake. I still haven't finished clearing away all the asteroids they left floating about, and as for the sun spots.....

Seeker-

I know an answer when I see it. I also know bullshit when I see it. Your posts are full of it.