tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post4046762690320394660..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: A Proud Arrogant Haughty WillieGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-9108543742179120032008-11-06T17:51:00.000+13:002008-11-06T17:51:00.000+13:00I think parvus flatus is a troll.I think parvus flatus is a troll.Russell Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03551250544512295798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-365774137026295342008-11-05T20:19:00.000+13:002008-11-05T20:19:00.000+13:00Look at you, Leo baby! You didn't address a singl...Look at you, Leo baby! You didn't address a single darned thing I said. You just attacked my methodology. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Can't refute it, so you ridicule it? Tsss. Just like a WCG minister!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-44894401705865515772008-11-04T09:47:00.000+13:002008-11-04T09:47:00.000+13:00Parvus Flatus, your entire comment offers absolute...Parvus Flatus, your entire comment offers absolutely nothing in defense of, nor proof for, your views - all it is is one rambling ad hominen attack.<BR/><BR/>You obviously can't counter or refute the logic of people who you scornfully refer to as "atheists" - and so you attack them instead with unfounded assertions.<BR/><BR/>Your words do your position more harm than good.<BR/><BR/>Probably better to quit while you can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-13330585488623804442008-11-03T09:17:00.000+13:002008-11-03T09:17:00.000+13:00"I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, s..."I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, some of the professing atheists are really beginning to come clean and demonstrate their real influences. They've finally gotten down to some blasphemy. Now, that requires a huge, huge, humongous, meshuggas amount of faith!"<BR/><BR/>That is so illogical and stupid I don't even know where to start. It takes faith to consider it blasphemy. I have no faith, therefore I don't consider it blasphemy, as there's nothing to blaspheme against.<BR/><BR/>But I'll stop here. I'm guessing you are referring to some comments over at ISA, and as I said there, I don't particularly care what people think. You have your own blogs, use them.Russell Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03551250544512295798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-12607729224685002292008-11-03T06:11:00.000+13:002008-11-03T06:11:00.000+13:00"I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, s...<EM>"I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, some of the professing atheists are really beginning to come clean and demonstrate their real influences. They've finally gotten down to some blasphemy. Now, that requires a huge, huge, humongous, meshuggas amount of faith!"</EM><BR/><BR/>So does posting un-anonymously. And the fact that you can't take what was clearly a joke, intended in the "spirit" of the Hallowe'en season, as such, is more proof that you're just as close-minded as the "My way or the highway!" brand of atheists.<BR/><BR/>If the "blasphemy" offends you, why do you read it? And did you ever stop to look at it from our point of view, that it's not blasphemy as far as we're concerned?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-45848890368177758752008-11-03T06:05:00.000+13:002008-11-03T06:05:00.000+13:00"I doubt that the folks you mentioned even know wh...<EM>"I doubt that the folks you mentioned even know who I am."</EM><BR/><BR/>Hm, given that you are so far off the alleged "playbook" that Junior and Weazell are insisting their little money-maker is now on, I'm inclined to agree.<BR/><BR/>As for your assertions of never having been ordained, perhaps it's a case of Thiel-itis that keeps you posting here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-2505542756875586862008-11-03T05:16:00.000+13:002008-11-03T05:16:00.000+13:00"I bet you do, in fact, actively worry that God re..."I bet you do, in fact, actively worry that God really might exist from time to time!"<BR/><BR/>Man, have you got me pegged! Right on the nail. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-70815738394688663702008-11-02T15:49:00.000+13:002008-11-02T15:49:00.000+13:00PH, I appreciate the vote of confidence. But, once...PH, I appreciate the vote of confidence. But, once again, you are incorrect. I have never been ordained. I doubt that the folks you mentioned even know who I am.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-39019563189039433192008-11-02T12:33:00.000+13:002008-11-02T12:33:00.000+13:00Hey, PR. Nice rhetoric there. But, sadly for you...Hey, PR. <BR/><BR/>Nice rhetoric there. But, sadly for you, the Bible happens to be quite different from those other works you cited. At least your logic is consistent. You list cartoon characters with God and Jesus to make your point, and also list obvious counterfeit holy books with the Bible in an attempt to cast them as equals.<BR/><BR/>You don't fool me a bit, though. I know that you aren't a true dispassionate atheist who arrived at his viewpoints via science. You are what we all know as a WCG atheist. Big, big difference. You became an atheist as a result of and solution for spiritual rape. WCG has contaminated your atheism, just as it contaminates anything else with which it comes into contact! I bet you do, in fact, actively worry that God really might exist from time to time! That would be typical, based on discussions with others who have cared to be a bit more honest and revealing.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be a one topic poster here, further proving that you are probably internally conflicted with the God question. Who are you trying to convince of your beliefs, yourself or all the other posters?<BR/><BR/>I noticed today that on one of the other blogs, some of the professing atheists are really beginning to come clean and demonstrate their real influences. They've finally gotten down to some blasphemy. Now, that requires a huge, huge, humongous, meshuggas amount of faith!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-63066062852137822792008-11-02T11:04:00.000+13:002008-11-02T11:04:00.000+13:00Charlie,What is it about evolution that you do not...Charlie,<BR/><BR/>What is it about evolution that you do not accept? Or is your beef mainly with abiogenesis?<BR/><BR/>Paul RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-19456500118950937982008-11-02T11:03:00.000+13:002008-11-02T11:03:00.000+13:00"As an atheist you do have to have faith."Once aga..."As an atheist you do have to have faith."<BR/><BR/>Once again, is your lack of belief in the Great Pumpkin a "faith?" Does it require faith to reject the idea that purple unicorns exist? I'll bet that your answer is "no." *<BR/><BR/>"You are placing a bet that the Bible is totally bogus."<BR/><BR/>Do you belive the things written in the Koran? In the Indian religious texts? You too are placing a bet that those things are totally bogus.*<BR/><BR/>"You are also placing a bet that there is no Creator, and that you therefore have absolutely no responsibility to Him. You are totally throwing the legal precept of "reasonable doubt" to the winds."<BR/><BR/>Creator? Or Jehovah? Or Allah? Or Zeus? Tell me, do you believe in Allah and/or Zeus? I doubt it. Sounds like you are also placing your own bet, and a risky one at that. Allah doesn't care too much for unbelievers (like Jehovah)so you might want to get your gods in order. Aren't you also casting reasonable doubt aside when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the the goddess Kali??* <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"You are placing your faith in secular human logic and reasoning."<BR/><BR/>I don't place "faith" on my ability to reason. I don't place "faith" on my ability to make observations and judgements.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>"You also must have faith in the supposition that the law of biogenesis was broken one or more times, even though the most advanced scientists in all history have not been able to accomplish this today in our times."<BR/><BR/>When there is evidence that there is a god or goddess, then I will take a magical creation event into account. But until then, I will keep the fairy tales seperate from scientific theory, no matter how incredulous the theory seems.<BR/><BR/>I would also, using your logic, that since a god/goddess hasn't magically created anything in all of human history it casts serious doubt on a creation event. <BR/><BR/>"You must have faith that the active laws of the universe, and the materials composing it were "just there"."<BR/><BR/>No, no faith. It's a theory. I haven't accepted it as a fact so I don't treat it as one.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"This requires just as much faith to believe as it does to believe that the Creator was "just there"."<BR/><BR/>The difference is that you steadfastly believe in the latter without any proof. I don't view abiogenesis in this way.<BR/><BR/><BR/>*these inconsistencies really portray you as a hypocrite<BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-69189137593525795532008-11-02T07:52:00.000+13:002008-11-02T07:52:00.000+13:00As an atheist you do have to have faith. You are ...As an atheist you do have to have faith. You are placing a bet that the Bible is totally bogus. You are also placing a bet that there is no Creator, and that you therefore have absolutely no responsibility to Him. You are totally throwing the legal precept of "reasonable doubt" to the winds. You are placing your faith in secular human logic and reasoning. <BR/><BR/>You also must have faith in the supposition that the law of biogenesis was broken one or more times, even though the most advanced scientists in all history have not been able to accomplish this today in our times. <BR/><BR/>You must have faith that the active laws of the universe, and the materials composing it were "just there". This requires just as much faith to believe as it does to believe that the Creator was "just there".<BR/><BR/>You may not have thought about these things in just this way, most likely because faith is considered to be a religious term, and atheism is based on the theory that there is no God. However, it all boils down to flipside of the same coin. Yin and yang. Opposites. You place your bet either way. Faith enters this equation with your belief that you are playing with the odds in your favor, and your hope that losing the bet will not produce catastrophic damage.<BR/><BR/>You can mock faith if you wish. But it is most certainly required for both belief and nonbelief. It is automatically triggered by how you choose to deal with the unknown, rhetoric notwithstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-36230796050021560702008-11-02T02:07:00.000+13:002008-11-02T02:07:00.000+13:00"I'll take the Lake O' Fire rather than worship th...<EM>"I'll take the Lake O' Fire rather than worship the basket case that is Jehovah."</EM><BR/><BR/>Hear hear!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-38402878223302588152008-11-02T02:02:00.000+13:002008-11-02T02:02:00.000+13:00"either that, or you simply are making claims that...<EM>"either that, or you simply are making claims that far exceed your specific area of training or expertise."</EM><BR/><BR/>Yup, it's official, folks: "Larry" here is a WCG evangelist. Or some flavour of ministurd minion to Junior and Weazell.<BR/><BR/>Mark my words, I pegged him for a pastard from the first day he showed up here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-21892877639228235772008-11-02T01:33:00.000+13:002008-11-02T01:33:00.000+13:00Leonardo,Lots and lots of reading. Since I believe...Leonardo,<BR/><BR/>Lots and lots of reading. <BR/><BR/>Since I believe neither version you can have your own opinion as to how objective I am.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-89186781720118397522008-11-01T08:29:00.000+13:002008-11-01T08:29:00.000+13:00Paul Ray wrote:"Leo, no one here will disagree wit...Paul Ray wrote:<BR/>"Leo, no one here will disagree with you that Islamo-Facists have a desire to convert the entire world over to their particular brand of theo-totalitarianism. But where we disagree is why they attacked us. According to you, the reason is that we are free, to boil it down."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Well, my view is that Bin Laden hates us and ordered the 9-11 attack against us simply because we are not believers in Allah and his perverted Prophet, plus the fact that we are the only superpower left standing after the collapse of the former Soviet Union – and then secondarily, because we are free democracies.<BR/><BR/>Reading FUTURE JIHAD: TERRORIST STRATEGIES AGAINST THE WEST by Walid Phares, along with hearing several of his superb lectures on the topic, really provides a good historical overview of the fundamentals of their thinking – both past and present.<BR/><BR/>Other than that, I would agree with virtually all your other concluding statements in your post, which I may end up agreeing with even more so as I'm currently reading Paul Kennedy's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GREAT POWERS - which was recommended in a Bible Study given by Gene Hogberg when it was originally published back in 1989.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-25572967600367243642008-11-01T08:13:00.000+13:002008-11-01T08:13:00.000+13:00Charlie, how can you make such statements as in yo...Charlie, how can you make such statements as in your above post – like:<BR/><BR/>“Just like all the different religions these fundamentalist evolutionists start out with a conclusion and then stack the evidence for their pet theories.”<BR/><BR/>This is absolute nonsense – and totally counters the actual historical record, which you very obviously are completely ignorant of.<BR/><BR/>Charlie, be honest with yourself, how much serious reading have you actually done in this area? Have you looked at the issue from only a creationist point-of-view? Or have you read serious books or articles, with a truly open mind, on the subject written by scientists who are trained in this area?<BR/><BR/>The evidence for biological evolution is increasing by the year, especially in the area of DNA and genetic science.<BR/><BR/>Most Christians just refuse to even initially face up to, or keep up with the steadily-accumulating facts and evidence, that validates evolution - instead preferring their creationist cartoon-like characterizations of evolution, which are little more than easily knocked down straw men arguments, and not what evolutionary scientists actually believe at all.<BR/><BR/>Read FINDING DARWIN’S GOD by Ken Miller – who is a Christian, and yet faces up to the facts of science.<BR/><BR/>Better yet, I challenge you to read GOD & EVOLUTION: THE IMPLICATIONS OF DARWIN’S THEORY FOR FUNDAMENTALISM, THE BIBLE AND THE MEANING OF LIFE by Daniel J. Samson – who, by the way, was a full-time pastor in the WCG for 18 years during the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, until he finally was forced to look at the evidence upon being asked some serious questions by a prospective member he was visiting up in Canada. This book needs to be read by any Church member who seriously wants to claim a genuine and accurate understanding of the subject.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I used to think the same way as you for years - until I finally, for the first time in all my 30+ years in the Church, started actually studying, point-by-point, the factual evidence in support of biological evolution. Much like HWA in the mid-1920’s, my original intention was to finally understand and then refute the arguments of science for evolution – except that I came to the opposite conclusions that HWA arrived at. I can tell you with absolute assurance that his understanding of evolution was extremely inaccurate.<BR/><BR/>Creationists hail Dr. Behe as their great spokesman, but often fail to realize he is 99% evolutionist. Just read his works. I’ve talked to the guy in person and know where he stands.<BR/><BR/>Please, read the above books, especially Samson’s one, and then tell me there is no serious and overwhelming evidence for evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-65974788077065901282008-11-01T07:35:00.000+13:002008-11-01T07:35:00.000+13:00parvus flatus wrote:"Sooner or later, faith has to...parvus flatus wrote:<BR/>"Sooner or later, faith has to come into these arguments...You've got to have a lot of faith to be an atheist..."<BR/><BR/><BR/>How is this so? Would you care to explain your statement that faith is required for non-belief?<BR/><BR/>This is yet another standard argument that has been refuted time and again in the basic literature that believers continually recycle.<BR/><BR/>In fact, faith is actually required to believe in things there simply is no positive, tangible, rational or empirical evidence for - a spirit realm, gods, demons, angels, etc.<BR/><BR/>It takes no faith whatsoever to conclude that such things do NOT exist – just a look at the known facts. On the contrary, faith is the ONLY path by which someone can conclude these entities truly exist, especially SPECIFIC ones such as Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or whoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-14774854695596229122008-10-31T23:21:00.001+13:002008-10-31T23:21:00.001+13:00Make that 'Can'Make that 'Can'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-25470733370890451782008-10-31T23:21:00.000+13:002008-10-31T23:21:00.000+13:00Paul,I'm open to the possibility. I would need to ...Paul,<BR/><BR/>I'm open to the possibility. I would need to see proof before I believed any creation story.<BR/><BR/>I have however had prayer answered. You can't take that for what it is worth to you. They are personal experiences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-7902205536096229532008-10-31T17:05:00.000+13:002008-10-31T17:05:00.000+13:00"Second, the reason these fanatics hate America so..."Second, the reason these fanatics hate America so much has less to do with America’s past or present foreign policy (which I often disagree with) than it has to do with the fact that America represents economically successful, freedom-loving democracies like much of Europe –<BR/><BR/>Leo, no one here will disagree with you that Islamo-Facists have a desire to convert the entire world over to their particular brand of theo-totalitarianism. But where we disagree is why they attacked us. According to you, the reason is that we are free, to boil it down. But look at much of Europe- hotbeds of liberal hedonism. Abortion loving, dope-smoking socialists with somewhat free markets. Why didn't they start with the Swiss? The Danish? The Swedes? They attacked us because we have stuck our phallus in their noses. I don't say this to excuse their actions by any means. It's just a fact. For the last one hundred years we have acted (for the most part with good intentions) as Rome- Pax Americana. It's ironic that we have become the same entity that the Founding Fathers took arms against- a world spanning empire seeking to bring democracy to the world.<BR/><BR/> I say we can defend ourselves against any foe with our top-notch military and arsenal of nukes without having to have our troops occupy 130 nations around the globe (how would you feel if the Chinese had military bases on our soil in the name of Chinese "national interests?"). Let's mind our own business and restore true liberty to all Americans (which we have lost)instead of trying to play the global teacher at recess- but remaining a terrible enemy to those that attack us.<BR/><BR/>Paul RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-16768181899775704202008-10-31T16:46:00.000+13:002008-10-31T16:46:00.000+13:00"First there was Darwinian theory...but that hit a..."First there was Darwinian theory...but that hit a snag then there was a number of scientists that put their 'faith' in Modern Synthesis, and then others in Punctuated Equilibrium, and now others have their consensus in Post-Modern Synthesis."<BR/><BR/>And whom all agree that evolution happened, but disagree on exactly how it happened. <BR/><BR/>I applaud you for at least rejecting fairy tales, Charlie. That's good enough for me. It shows that you can think critically. By the way, do you happen to believe in a supernatural being who may or may not have "created" everything? Just curious.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-511355269839082272008-10-31T16:41:00.000+13:002008-10-31T16:41:00.000+13:00You've got to have a lot of faith to be an atheist...You've got to have a lot of faith to be an atheist, that you're not accountable. That's what it's all about. Most atheists I know would have no problem at all with God, if only He didn't have the bad habit of insisting on some sort of behavioral code."<BR/><BR/>One. Atheism requires no faith- that is unless you are willing to admit that rejecting the existence of Thor, Vishnu, Allah, or The Great Pumpkin also requires faith. Do you? Do you have to have some sort of faith in your rejection of The Great Pumpkin? Is your lack of belief in Thor a "faith?" Is your rejection of purple flying unicorns a "faith?"<BR/><BR/>As far as the personality of God goes, it doesn't color my acceptance of his existence. He either exists, or he doesn't. If the genocidal, psychotic God of the Bible is real, then he is real, whether I wish it so or not. Confronted with the evidence, I (unlike Christians) would be forced to admit his existence whether I agreed with his methods or not. It has everything to do with proof, not perceptions.<BR/><BR/>Now whether I would bend my knee to such an evil god is another matter; I'll take the Lake O' Fire rather than worship the basket case that is Jehovah.<BR/><BR/>Paul RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-19965027923808986962008-10-31T16:32:00.000+13:002008-10-31T16:32:00.000+13:00Yet another discussion devolves into a back and fo...Yet another discussion devolves into a back and forth between fundamentalist creationists and fundamentalist evolutionists.<BR/><BR/>Chances are very good that you are both wrong.<BR/><BR/>If you can see lightning, hear thunder, and can read at a 9th grade level or better, the biblical story of creation is clearly NOT supported by archeology, geology, or biology.<BR/><BR/>If you are honest with yourself, the same can just about be said for evolutionists, except I would give them the benefit of a 12th grade level. Science SHOULD be the search for FACT. Sadly, biological sciences (and several others) have become belief by consensus. Proof is no longer necessary (Like religions) as long as you have enough scientists in agreement with your theories. <BR/><BR/>The multitude of religions out there exist, not because they have proof that their beliefs are valid, but because enough people agree with enough of what somebody is dishing out to have a consensus on belief. That is no way of finding truth, but is a great way to be among like minded folk. That is exactly what the scientific community has done with the search for the origin(s) of life and explanation for the diversity of life. First there was Darwinian theory...but that hit a snag then there was a number of scientists that put their 'faith' in Modern Synthesis, and then others in Punctuated Equilibrium, and now others have their consensus in Post-Modern Synthesis.<BR/><BR/>Just like all the different religions these fundamentalist evolutionists start out with a conclusion and then stack the evidence for their pet theories.<BR/><BR/>It is like the dark ages all over again. If you don't believe what is popular in religion or science then you are both stupid and a heretic of the worst sort. Larry, Paul, and Corky (as well as you know who on his own site) are perfect examples of this type of a for us or against us kind of attitude. This is not the road to finding FACT but can lead to things like being stoned as a heretic or losing your job for questioning the *current theory* in great favor among the academics.<BR/><BR/>Proof NEEDS to be required for belief gentlemen.<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me snakes talk without demonstrable proof.<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me the bible is literally true without the proof.<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me evolution / abiogenesis is true without demonstrable proof.<BR/><BR/>Please don't respond with links to your favorite religious site or evolutionist site with that kowtows to your particular flavor of 'theology' or evolutionary 'science'. I've been all over many of them.<BR/><BR/>I don't think any of your arguments hold water. Time to go back to the basics; in order to pass a test in school or college, I had to *prove* my answers were correct. <BR/><BR/>Facts are not represented as "4 out of 5 Dentists agree that Sudso is the best toothpaste". That is consensus, not science at work.<BR/><BR/>I am not a scientist or a theologian so don't bother asking. I am just a project manager that realized that if code for a software application is missing even the smallest piece of information (i.e. Proof), the program doesn't work properly and at times, not at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-90945611561772432452008-10-31T09:58:00.000+13:002008-10-31T09:58:00.000+13:00Paul Ray,I'm interested in reading that articl...Paul Ray,<BR/><BR/>I'm interested in reading that article you recommended, and thank you for mentioning it.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I have met both Michael Behe and Nick Matzke - and had the chance to talk to Dr. Behe at some length once, and ask him some questions. And though I very much like him on a personal level (he's a very likable, friendly, approachable, and genuinely humble fellow from what I could tell), still I was rather disappointed by his obvious evasions to my questions. His original book (Darwin’s Black Box), as you probably know, was seriously out-of-date by the time it was first published back in 1996. So much so that the university he teaches at (Lehigh) had to eventually put out a disclaimer regarding his ideas on their website.<BR/><BR/>Several years ago I attended a three-day Intelligent Design seminar, and heard Dr. Behe on a panel discussion with Jonathan "Icons of Evolution" Wells and some other prominent IDer's.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I also witnessed when Nick Matzke was ready to ask what was to be a controversial question of Behe during the Q&A session, when suddenly the moderator quite blatantly jumped in and stopped the Q & A session prematurely right as Matzke was about ready to question Dr. Behe. I don’t blame Dr. Behe for this, but very clearly the moderator (a professor at Bible Institute of Los Angeles, where the seminar was held) intervened to protect his friend from public embarrassment. I believe Matzke was working on his doctorate at the time.<BR/><BR/>So much for open discussion and intellectual honesty amongst at least some of the proponents of ID.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com