Comments by Philip1978

351. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191483 by Philip1978 on June 11, 2008 at 3:33 am

Paula

You are a remarkable lady, I really mean that, you are far braver than I could ever be!

I would have been shouting bollocks at least 5 mins into that one!

What utter arrogance on his part! Scientists said the Earth was the center of the universe?? LIAR FOR JESUS ALERT!

I think you should have said something about the 9th Commandment!

I think you deserved that Remy and I will see what I can do about getting you a medal for your bravery! Anyone know of a medal person? :)

Philip

352. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191432 by Philip1978 on June 11, 2008 at 12:53 am

Edited: forgot to check the person I was typing to

txpiper

Steve is right, I have read through a few of your posts, you seem to have firm convictions that you are right about how your God is important in what you are discussing. You claim an intelligent designer is involved in the workings of the this world and have developed firm convictions and I think that is your biggest mistake.

Steve's airplane analogy is spot on - once you start injecting god into the workings of it you are removing just what it is that makes scientific study so important.

I think the others have gone over ad infinitum how impossibly complex, and in my opinion stupid, it is to have a designer involved with the making of anything in this universe. So much of it goes horribly wrong and does not work as if an intelligent designer was involved, if a designer had been involved so much more would work properly!

Cheers

Philip

353. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191009 by Philip1978 on June 10, 2008 at 5:21 am

I am not in an ethical free for all because I believe in an absolute God who provides the standard for absolute morality

Riiiiiiiight, so where did you get your ideas for this one then David?

Deuteronomy 13 (New International Version)

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

Or Deuteronomy 22:28

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Or this perhaps?

Judges 19 (New International Version)

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

Or are you more of a New Testament kind of chap?

After all Mark 5 says this

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

So in keeping with that have you ever committed adultery as is defined by Jesus?

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

If you had a lusty thought about a woman you had best start to repent as best you can!! :)

How about this from Luke, if you follow what Jesus asks then you have to do this:

Luke 14:25-27 (New International Version)

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters "yes, even his own life "he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Did you mean this "absolute morality" David? I got it from the Bible, the book that is the word of YOUR God, if you believe in that God then you must of course agree with what is said above. If not then is God possibly wrong? Is the Bible wrong?

354. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190979 by Philip1978 on June 10, 2008 at 3:13 am

Cool

I have always maintained I have mixed feelings about this chap but once in a while I like hearing him give religion a good bashing. I love the way folk get positively frantic when their religion is questioned and I encourage it, religion has to be questioned in order to point out its ridiculous status. I wish Bill all the best of luck with this, I really do and if this movie appears here in the UK I will be glad to watch it, go Bill, go gettem!

355. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189273 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Appleby

WTF??

I should "read" your posts? Is there some incredible hidden meaning, where up until now I have simply missed it because I was too busy just reading the surface of them? I have read your posts and they are filled with shit like

Anyway, yes, I prefer virgin (human) females. I see nothing wrong with that. In my experience, they're "tighter", humbler, more tactful and won't try to compare me with the other men they've slept with. And I enjoy teaching them to make up for their lack of experience. It's not just about them pleasuring me

Virgin ploughing, good start! But no matter how scary the above sounds thats a bit of a strawman so lets move on.

I think the only reason why bestials haven't come out of closet demanding equals rights is because there aren't enough of them yet.

I am simply trying to establish whether or not homosexuals view themselves (and consequently their rights) as somehow different from those who practice bestiality

So here you start equating gay people with bestiality and have not let up on it since, using the word scientific a lot and pouring scorn upon others for not realising this has been your wont, I could quote more if you want? Your blatant homophobia is disgusting, I think you have been told that many times but still haven't taken it in and you keep hiding behind the word "thought experiment" which doesn't wash at all. All that crap about teh gays not making good enough or suitable parents was too nauseating to quote in full, if you want I can go back but there is no point.

Sex shouldn't be much of a problem for many animals. They have those holes for a reason, you know

That is just plain fucking scary, but, as others and I have explained its not biologically right for other species to shag, so I don't think you have a point there.

I have read your posts and I have replied to them as I saw fit, dont accuse me otherwise. I could sit here quote mining all day but I have loads to do, so just accept that I have read a lot of what you have typed and I disagree with a heck of a lot of it, as is set down in my posts. No way am I saying my posts are perfect rebuttals but I wanted to make it clear from your accusation that I am in fact well aware of your opinions.

356. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189023 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 8:16 am

If you can't be arsed to read my comments then why the hell should I even bother?

357. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189013 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 8:00 am

Appleby

If Quetz was to say something I disagreed with I would tell him, Corylus was telling the truth.

If Quetz was embarrassing himself I would call him on it, but, I read what he typed and I can find no fault in it.

Whatever I put forward here on this site, people can call me on it and they have. I have argued with the best and worse of them, but I still got called on it from all sides.

I have found fault in your line of argument and think you deserve whatever "ganging up" you get, you brought this on yourself by persisting with it.

358. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188978 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 5:30 am

noodly_noodleson

Thinking about it, 70,000 characters is a lot to say the least, normally I would say thats a load of old bollocks - how come I can get by with 26? Then again, that is a very impressive feat and like you said this is the work of many generations, I am surprised they get preserved so well.

But I'll bet there is some clever sod out there who knows them all - then again the fun would be making the smart arse write them all out! :)

359. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188967 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 4:21 am

noodly_noodleson

70,000 you say...

Going back to my student days I reckon I could have read all that in an afternoon! ;)

Yiiiiikes thats a lot of characters!

360. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188926 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 2:20 am

Steve

You also forgot we Hetros are obviously doing all we can to educate you and turn you back so you don't start encouraging other folk to ravage animals or start interfering with family values! :)

361. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188898 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2008 at 12:49 am

I leave the party for 5 mins...

Appleby, on the whole I have been nice to you but I am getting increasingly tired of you insulting good people's intelligence because of something like their sexuality.

Your assumptions about Sharon typify everything I have become to dislike about your attitude. You have repeatedly come back with retorts about how I am taking your words out of context whenever I questioned it but I see little evidence of what you claim to be true.

An example

1069. Comment #188627 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:33 am
Comment #188625 by SharonMcT

You're gay too, aren't you? I can tell from your picture.

This is right after Sharon very correctly summed up your line of argument, you threw this back at her instead of standing up for yourself or admitting you were wrong. How is incorrectly assuming Sharon's sexuality a way of answering the question? What possible help is that to the debate? Do you think that because I am not gay means I answer questions differently to someone like Steve? Its got fuck all to do with the question and everything to do with your homophobia which you refuse to admit.

If you had stood up and admitted you were wrong or even gave an apology I would understand and respect that more. But you like to hide behind the words "thought experiments" as if you are just suddenly playing devils advocate and that its all ok

What you're reading on these pages are thought experiments. I still can't understand why everyone (and here of all places) is so sensitive about these issues.

That means fuck all and I think you are lying, you are exactly how Al described you and I have had enough.

If you can't provide anything better than to equate bestiality and homosexuality whilst also insulting people's intelligence then I suggest you give up now because you are going to convince nobody on that front. Like Podaar said your "Scientific" argument holds very little weight and I think you need to rethink things a lot.

The rest is up to you, grow up or shut up.

Philip

362. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188582 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

Please can you call me Philip, I much prefer it.

Any animal you attempt to shag I would have thought, though I wish you luck with something the size and weight of an adult elephant!

363. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188576 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 8:05 am

Appleby

Are you really as dim as I think you are or are you doing this deliberately?

Bestiality harms animals, that can be established quite easily, which is what qomak's post is saying is wrong, so NO, bestiality is NOT PERMITTED!

364. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188550 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 7:45 am

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Someone mentioned this before....

Humans are of the same species, built to shag each other - Science has proved that, I am sure the biologists here can fill you in on details like the right pheromones, brain chemicals etc, I don't know enough about it but evolution usually brings same species together for companionship etc Its a good survival thing if the species works in groups etc etc

Animals are of ANOTHER species, not biologically sound enough to shag, they were not built for it, I dont care if you think that any hole is a goal, it is not biologically sound to do it. You have just given those holes a purpose for which they were not made for, so it is not scientifically sound to shag them.

Hows that?

365. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188519 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 7:07 am

Appleby

I don't know how else to respond, you keep saying consent is not an issue but thats part of the whole bloody reason not to shag animals because it IS harming them!

Who here has been dictating where we chaps stick our dicks? Have we not been repeating ad infinitum that its ok until it starts causing harm or distress?

As Epeeist said its an ethical matter, forget the science testing bit! You could by all means test the brain wave patterns, the amount of struggling form the animal, the amount of times it tries to bite you etc. But first you would have to accept the logical and ethical reasons not to do such a fucking stupid thing - its all shades, shapes and sizes of WRONG, end of story. Why does it need scientific testing to prove it is ok?

366. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188417 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 5:01 am

Shocking Cock up? He is attaching electrodes to his bits?

WILL SOMEONE PLZE SAVE TEH KITTEHS! :)

The mice would be hiding if they know whats good for them!

Ceiling Cat:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/cat-armour-dan.jpg

367. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188409 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 4:17 am

They? The powers that be? Thor and Odin? Hello magazine?

I have more hope in humanity than to think that bestiality will become the norm, to quote Bill Watterson who did the Calvin and Hobbes cartoons "Flatulence could be all the rage, it would still be disgusting!"

368. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188403 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 4:05 am

And using creative logic, you may one day not be able to say yours (or heterosexuality) is better than bestiality. How do you feel about that?

Huh?

Bestiality is the fucking of animals without their consent, being very careful of your parts if near a goat!

Rachel and her fiance have made a promise and commitment to each other through love, Irate married his wife for probably the same reasons, my relationships in the past have been based on mutual trust - how the heck do you get to rating that with bestiality from there?

369. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188398 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 3:50 am

Entered it by mistake. Please remove yours as well.

Is that an actor's term? ;)

370. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188381 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 3:09 am

Asides from your desire to "educate" and "teach them some useful things where other guys probably wouldn't bother" where else could I have possibly got the impression you think you are that good in the sack?

I am sorry if you think I am misreading your sentences but I honestly can't see how I am supposed to read such sentences without such implications being hinted at.

Quetz, since he has flirted with you and Alrawindi I think the flies already got to him, Billy is very quick these days isnt he! hehehhe

371. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188372 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 2:57 am

irate_atheist

Ceiling Cat sayz DO NOT WANT!

Appleby

You are not a love doctor, I can guarantee it!

Plus Quetz has spoken, heed his words or suffer the Fruit Flies!

Quetz, if he continues in this manner shall I contact Billy and send the Flies forth to fiddle with his Genes?

372. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188361 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 2:44 am

I didn't say that out of arrogance. I just said that because I know the girls will remember me because I was their first time (and actually took the time to teach them some useful things where other guys probably wouldn't bother

WTF??? What the heck is that then, how else am I meant to read it?

There you go again, bragging about your sexual prowess! You are not Quetz's gift to women!

373. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188355 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 2:29 am

In fact, most the guys these women finally end up with or marry have me to thankt

Hang on, you reckon you are that good in the sack? Bit arrogant isn't it?

One thing I have learned in my sexual adventures is don't brag about it, its stupid and if your girlfriend ends reading this you are in for one hell of a bollocking! :)

Irate, you have nothing to be sorry about!

374. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188338 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2008 at 1:04 am

And I enjoy teaching them to make up for their lack of experience.

Yeeesh!

Oh well, as long as it is two consenting adults, I cannot turn around and comment on that, however much I disagree with it, just be a good boy and don't injure them.

375. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188226 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 11:45 am

Slurps at tea.... still naughty....

Bonzai

Next thing you will be telling me is that you drink from the coffee cup....? :)

376. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188215 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 11:21 am

Rachel

I think that would be decidedly painful on anyone's parts if there was a goat involved! ;)

Sorry.....Taxi for 1 idiot!

377. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188174 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 9:51 am

When I went uni in Southampton a lot of people thought I was gay simply because of my accent but I must be losing my appeal these days as I seem to get my arse pinched less!

378. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188111 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 8:31 am

Before I bounce home, congratulations Rachel!

May you and your partner complete the Daily Telegraph crossword happily ever after and always keep the dictionary handy in case you feel the need to play scrabble! ;)

379. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188102 by Philip1978 on June 3, 2008 at 8:24 am

I am a bit confused here, doesn't everybody here agree that, despite our sexual preferences, bestiality is just fucking wrong? :) I'll get my coat...TAXI!

Come on Appleby, I really don't understand your grievances- I think its been shown to you that consensual romping between 2 adults, who can at anytime say they do not want to do something, is perfectly reasonable? The adults can discuss it, we have language, we can define when sex is wrong simply if someone does not want to do it yet is forced - easy enough.

I am aghast you feel that any other bedroom Olympics other than the one you feel comfortable with has any affect on your daily life. You are not involved are you? So don't worry so much, its not worth it.

Irate made a good point, your connection between killing animals and sexual consent is confusing to say the least. The lion doesn't want to fuck the gazelle its chasing, he has his pride of females to do that - he eats food to survive - how he goes about his shagging is utterly different.

How I condone my not being a vegetarian has nothing to do with my sexual preferences, those two matters are separate surely?

Philip

380. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187384 by Philip1978 on June 2, 2008 at 4:53 am

One thing that grabs me about this article is the "hurt and insults" that seem to arise whenever this subject is raised.

I for one am happy for others to question things, thats one of the ways new ideas can be generated and discussed fully, especially if the subject is one like evolution, we do want to get it right don't we?

I have always thought that in order to find the right answer you have to test things, gather evidence, discuss it etc. Why is it such an offensive thing to then say back to a person with a question or a theory about something like evolution that they have got it wrong?

What is so ghastly about being wrong and then finding out a better answer to the question? There is no shame in admitting you are wrong about something once it has been explained, I think that makes that person a better one.

Is it not worse for a person to yell til their face becomes a rather dangerous shade of puce that they are absolutely right no matter what? Is it not more embarrassing to hold on to an idea that can be convincingly proved wrong?

I am never ashamed of admitting I am wrong, though I can be stubborn sometimes and do hold on to some ideas for nothing more than sentimental reasons. But thinking about it after I have been convinced I realise what the fuss is all about, I realise why my friends or family have to kick me up the arse once in a while, its simple - ITS FOR MY OWN GOOD!

:)

381. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187351 by Philip1978 on June 2, 2008 at 3:02 am

Athena's Mini Skirt!

I leave you guys alone for a couple of weeks and then I find out David is a creationist!

David, what the hell happened to you? I thought you were happy with evolution, I honestly thought that was one subject we could all agree on!

Ah well, if you can go and find another explanation that can stand up to the rigorous punishment and testing that evolution has managed to weather then by all means produce what you have and let it be tested.

I for one would be happy to read about another explanation, I have been reading a few chapters of Pale Blue Dot and Climbing Mount Improbable, one day I hope to finish them but what I have read so far has been mind blowing. I intend to read more on this to get a wider opinion but I would be very interested to hear your version of things.

To be honest, I am slowly starting to understand the simplicity of evolution and the massive complexity when you start adding higher intelligences into the boil. I will need more convincing to really see how a higher intelligence, even if its Matrix style super computer, could possibly affect the Universe considering the size and the number of things in it.

Ah yes, please can you possibly refrain from using the words Fundamentalist Atheist, you know the reasons why!

Philip

382. We happy hooligans

Comment #185994 by Philip1978 on May 29, 2008 at 10:25 am

Thor's Trousers!

A Hooligan at my age, fantastic!

I have just come back from holiday, I got into a strange conversation about the Christian religion where I, very calmly, explained all I know about science and how it holds better evidence for a lack of gods than for an actual one messing around with evolution etc In short I did my best to explain the complexity of having a god and how it was simply better to use an Occam's Razor approach.

The Christians then got utterly frantic with me, TELLING (not telling, it involved shouting!) me all sorts of things like how wrong I was etc but the thing that made me giggle into my beer was the sentence

"You can't trust all those mad scientists, what do they know about anything!"

These people are afraid of scientists helping them yet when some idiotic "holy" man tells them sheer dribbling nonsense they lap it up, what the hell is the matter with this world I ask you, no wonder scientists get a bad press!

Oh well, if scientists and anyone else who actually likes proper evidence is a hooligan, I had best go start yelling E=MC2 at the next church! :)

Philip

383. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180852 by Philip1978 on May 16, 2008 at 1:09 am

The same way as you and I.

You are having an affair with Tagred? You naughty man! I know Richard Dawkins.net has been bringing people together recently but this is all so sudden epeeist, what will the wife and kids say? :)

384. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180844 by Philip1978 on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 am

Aaahhrrrrrrggggghhhhh

Must control my uncontrollable lust, I saw her midriff....must find sedatives.... Gaaaahhhh I have become so overwhelmingly concupiscent all of a sudden... my lascivious nature just simply is bringing out words I never knew how to spell let alone say...my goodness, will you look at that Mermaid with the 2 Tails, my prurient mind simply cannot take it any more, JOSH, remove this filth that has already stained my mind and eyes before I finally lose it all and start using words like libidinous! :)

I'll be back after my cold shower....

385. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180551 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 7:41 am

Vergil

I feel stupid :)

Oh well, it is Thursday, could never get the hang of them!

My sincere apologies if I offended! :)

Philip

386. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180548 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 7:35 am

Honestly Max, how could you say yuiopqwert! to a lady? I thought you were a gentleman! :)

387. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180526 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 6:55 am

I am glad you agree, if it aint in Latin, people might be swayed off the idea!! :)

388. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180515 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 6:32 am

Vergil

I just want you to know my singing voice is awful and so I opt out of joining any choirs! What Reverend Dark says just happens to make sense to me and I would advise you to listen to him, he is a clever man who backs up what he says.

Theistic Evolution requires a deity, that is speculation based on no evidence whatsoever, you cannot test it, you cannot do anything but imagine it. God cannot work because he is too complex and unnecessary in explaining evolution as it works better without him being there. If you are trying to tell me that god is the Artificial Selector, that he is the one who decided to eradicate 99% of all species even before humans arrived I am sorry I need more convincing. Did he really control all the ice ages or droughts etc to then kill off all the creatures who did not develop the necessary genes to be able to survive whatever natural disaster He threw at them?

The theory of evolution by natural selection has been proved beyond doubt to be the best explanation that we humans have for the progression of life on this planet. You want to provide a testable alternative that manages to stand the same rigorous barrage of questioning and testing that the theory of evolution by natural selection has faced and defeated, by all means do it, I will be very impressed if you managed it.

Philip

389. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180507 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 6:16 am

txpiper

You wanted something larger, hows about humans for example taken from Wikipedia, in chronological order by genus:

* Sahelanthropus
o Sahelanthropus tchadensis
* Orrorin
o Orrorin tugenensis
* Ardipithecus
o Ardipithecus kadabba
o Ardipithecus ramidus
* Australopithecus
o Australopithecus anamensis
o Australopithecus afarensis
o Australopithecus bahrelghazali
o Australopithecus africanus
o Australopithecus garhi
* Paranthropus
o Paranthropus aethiopicus
o Paranthropus boisei
o Paranthropus robustus
* Kenyanthropus
o Kenyanthropus platyops
* Homo
o Homo habilis
o Homo rudolfensis
o Homo ergaster
o Homo georgicus
o Homo erectus
o Homo cepranensis
o Homo antecessor
o Homo heidelbergensis
o Homo rhodesiensis
o Homo neanderthalensis
o Homo sapiens idaltu
o Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
o Homo sapiens sapiens
o Homo floresiensis

So, all these fossils found and you still think that evolution is not possible?

Philip

390. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180467 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

Txpiper-

I am interested into what more is needed to help you understand the process?.

What other alternative can be tested and tested and tested over and over again and still stand up as good evidence?

Its not like these scientists made it up did they? My tone might sound sarcastic here but my point is if the scientists were just faffing around they would have been lynched by now, the scientific method will catch them out if they are really not researching the facts properly.

Yes there is complexity in understanding the mechanisms, I get almightily confused by the nitty gritty of it all, it goes whoooshing past my head very easily half the time.

But the process itself is so EASY to understand, I find it hard to cobble science together at the best of times, I am a historian and English graduate, but evolution by natural selection is not as complex as you envisage.

Hope that made sense, it kind of did when I was typing it! :)

Philip

391. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #180464 by Philip1978 on May 15, 2008 at 2:49 am

It was a good thread, I enjoyed it.

I still comment on how cool it was to type to Mark back then whenever I get the chance, whilst we ended up disagreeing I still found conversation with him fascinating.

Cheeeeeeeeeers

Philip

392. A natural selection

Comment #179974 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 3:43 am

Rod-the-farmer

Cool, I will take that under consideration, I just thought I would air an idea and see where it got me. The English and History Graduate in me wanted to pick on something! :)

I really don't want to understate the importance of what these guys are doing, I fully appreciate the idea that they want to confront this ridiculous notion that evolution is false. Too many people are being warded off the idea and its time to project a better image, knowledge of evolution should never be a scary thing.

But I still think that the future of this breaking of the "controversy" surrounding this issue would be better placed to not keep invoking something too complex like a god to explain something like evolution. Teaching evolution should be a lot easier than that, religion has built up a very unnecessary wall to stall attempts at furthering its progress.

I think the How/Why argument is still annoying and unhelpful, it does not do much good mucking around sticking gods into it but I will give the magazine its due credit and hope it encourages other magazines to do the same and possibly further people's understanding rather than scare them off it

Right, I will get back to my tea, thanks for the advice

Philip

393. A natural selection

Comment #179899 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 1:15 am

Hmmm good and bad I think.

I like the idea that this magazine is open minded enough not react in the frantic manner of lets say the creationist movement, I find that encouraging.

But I still have this small annoyance with the words

I was struck by how it captured the intellectual excitement of Darwin's age, the sense that his theory of natural selection helped humans unlock some of the mysteries of life - maybe not the why, but the how.

Why does the why in that sentence have to imply by default that a god was involved?

I am probably being far too pedantic but I simply cannot see the reason for saying things like that when the explanation of why does not cut the mustard when invoking an impossibly complex god to oversee and manipulate evolution by natural selection.

Am I being too picky? If so I will get back to my enormously large cup of Tea and appreciate the reasonable stance this magazine is taking! :)

Philip

394. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179894 by Philip1978 on May 14, 2008 at 12:43 am

David?

Hello?

Want to back up your assertions?

Perhaps?

I asked you a basic question, got an answer?

Or do you think that was enough since you felt it your duty to come back here and tell us that we all have "fundamentalist certainties"?

Does Jesus still love you for doing that?

395. Fleabytes

Comment #179402 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 8:00 am

Rian

You are very right, God has the worst body count in the book, Satan kills 10 people because God tells him to and gets labeled as the bad guy! Double standards I tell thee!

396. God seekers go public

Comment #179388 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 7:41 am

Quetz

Have I been channeling Satan again? I guess that accounts for all the bad language and want to discover more about evolution!

If Dumbski and Behehehhehehhehe....no really...hahahhahahaha.....remember the Dover trial..hehehhehehhehe! ever qualify as peers I will have to call upon your services and unleash the army! :)

397. God seekers go public

Comment #179382 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 7:30 am

What the fuck....?

Is their idea of "Peer Reviewed" just some red stamp on the paper saying "Goddidit"!

I would REALLY love to see these idiots provide the justification for some magnificent "Intelligence" arsing around throughout the ages thinking "Yes, another Ice Age will do, I can kill off so many animals, make way for some new ones that are more likely to survive in the freezing conditions then I can kill those animals by drought, mwhahahahahahaha!"

What utter dribble, the more I learn about evolution the more I think these guys are that word that Irate wishes us to fill in his comment section! :)

398. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179335 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 6:13 am

David

So its basics you want is it?

How come your church is the right one to go to and not one of the others mentioned in this article, are you not all praying to the same god?

Philip

399. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179309 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 5:24 am

txpiper

One thing that does confuse me and I hope you can explain it because I don't understand how you can arrive at your conclusions.

From what I understand of evolution it simply about life evolving from very simple things to more complex life forms which can take a vast number of years.

From what I have read on the subject there are things called transitional fossils that confirm that these changes have taken place. The fact that the people studying this subject have managed to predict where these fossils found - eg Tiktaalik -tells me that there must be some foundation to their studies.

If you want you can do an experiment of your very own, which has been done throughout the centuries its called "Artificial" Selection. This can be done with breeding things like dogs or horses, mating the strongest or fluffiest or whatever you want - always removing the dogs or horses that don't have those characteristics you want. You will begin to notice over the generations of these animals that the characteristic you are looking for will become more noticeable and dominant in your set of animals or if you want you can do this with plants - the idea still stays the same.

Now imagine this simply happening in nature, ie with no outside influence, nothing prodding it along except changes in the environment like temperature or lack of a certain kind of food, a disease - something random. The animals or plants or whatever that have the right DNA that is passed on down the generations will survive better and longer than those who didn't get that change in the gene pool. In a nutshell - Natural Selection.

I find it VERY difficult to then insert a God into all this or outside "intelligence" that would essentially play the role of artificial selector - How does that work?

Does this intelligence or God suddenly think "right, time for an ice age - what I will do is over time let the generations with the fur gene live and all the others die in the bitter cold because they wont have this gene!"

This intelligence or god then does this all over the Earth, doing different things to the trillions and billions of forms of life on the planet - all clicking it into place over millions of years. Making sure of course that around 99% of these creatures don't make it by chucking a few natural disasters all over the place etc

That sounds rather too complex to me, that is without posing questions about how the Intelligence or god went around fiddling with it all, which god it is etc The list gets endless and pointless because the god or intelligence is pointless in showing how this happened. Evolution is a VERY good explanation as to how this happened, it is not too complex and its provable. Gods are invisible, un-contactable and highly improbable figments of the imagination that don't help prove anything that has not already been explained.

How come you like the god idea better than something less difficult to explain?

Sorry for the long post! :)

Philip