Bill:
Do I agree that it's a Lie?
I think there is a difference between a willful lie and a story that has most likely been distorted over the years. I believe in the personhood and example of Jesus, but not the miracles attributed to him. I think the vast majority of the world's Christians probably don't know the similarities between Jesus and the other "Messiahs" that preceded him. I don't think that every believer is involved in a massive conspiratorial con game to convert people for their own personal gain.

No, Randy is doing the only thing Christians do. They recruit. They try to fool people into thinking Christianity is credible. Without that goal, they don't have anything to do. I have a theory. I don't think Randy has ever met an intelligent person. I think he was raised in a Christian family, and growing up, he thought the people in his church were intelligent. Me, I went to Law School at the University of Michigan, and after three years, I have a completely different standard for "intellect."

Recruitment is the only thing Christians do? My grandmother identifies herself as a Christian and has over 20,000 volunteer hours making lap robes for the elderly. I've never heard her try to convert anybody. What about Father Damien? What did he gain? J. S. Bach was devoutly religious. Was he a moron? Randy's met me (an agnostic), and I'm pretty smart.

Would I ever ask Randy not to give the best arguments in favor of Intelligent Design? Of course not. I think it's time that we reached a consensus... and I hope the Christians will reconsider their beliefs and join Team Darwin. And Team Atheist.
Teaching a supernatural explanation for the universe involving Casper the Friendly God in public high school science classes..??? You want me to let that happen? Because that's what the argument here is. that's what Creationism is.

I think asking Randy those pesky six questions is the best way to communicate the nature of science. Its how I learned to seperate the natural from the supernatural. One gets more flies with honey than with vinegar. I also think there is a danger in allowing creationism to be presented as a viable alternative to Darwinism that has been censored by the scientific community. I think making the claimer of the extraordinary responsible for the extraordinary evidence is the best route to go. Glad you did so well at the U of M. I live near Notre Dame, so we see a lot of Wolverines around here every other fall.

Randy,
Sorry if I misled you and I continue to hope that things improve for you and your family.
1) I'm not a Presbyterian. I attend the Presbyterian Church because my wife asks me to do so. I also like the cookies they serve and some of the hymns they sing. I also kind of like singing the old hymns. I drive the pastor nuts because I'm constantly asking her questions like,"How did 5000 people hear Jesus speak without modern amplification?" and "What happened when Jesus ascended to the top of the atmosphere? Did he go into outer space?" An examination of how the Bible came to be convinced me years ago that it is not to be taken literally.
2) Yeah, I think the "biological information" leading to "design" skips the design process. I could buy that there is a repeating pattern to be found withing DNA, but there is no evidence of the placement of such a pattern by an intelligent deity.

Question: How many of you can tell me - without looking it up! - who Barry Soetoro is, and what his citizenship status was in 1970? In 1972? Prove it.
Here's a very good example of the "extraordinary evidence required for extraordinary claims," Randy. You are the one making the extraordinary (and ridiculous)argument that the President of the United States isn't a naturalized citizen. It is your job to provide the extraordinary evidence. Darwin did it when he published YouKnowWhat. He provided the evidence for TTOETNS, now its your turn.