limpid

Yep, my mate knows that every time he drives out of town he'll receive a bunch of text messages as his phone registers to the next cell, even though the phone shows good coverage.

I know someone who is having exactly the same problems with an iphone on o2. I think the only thing you can do is pester the network. If it's not networked locked you could try a sim from another provider to try to prove this.

Careful, or a nutjob will try to canonise your phone.

You really don't have any answers of your own do you? So why did you use his bogus "proof" to back up your argument? We don't have anything that was written by Moses. Not one scrap. You cannot prove that Moses wrote that and even if you could, all that makes Moses is an author just like any other author. Authors write what their paymasters pay them to write. What is a "virgin planet"? When were the other thousands of planets created? Where is the second "light" in the sky (Ge 1:16)? The moon isn't a light. In Ge 1:9 "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.", so where is this single body of water? Or is this a special use of the word "one" meaning "many"? I can't examine the writings of Moses, no-one can. Even if I accept that he wrote Genesis, I still don't understand how things written by other, unrelated authors from different social groups and time periods could provide a single context, other than that intended by the later editors. If the bible is the word of god, why did god stop talking to biblical editors after Constantine convened the council of Nicea? Was it because this was when it was decided the mythical Jesus was divine, 300 years after his death? What about the gospels which were discarded? How do you know the sixth and seventh books of Moses weren't real? I don't trust facts from the bible any more than facts from Harry Potter. That isn't to say that there aren't facts in both. Kings Cross station definitely exists. I've seen it. Why have you brought the word "nutjob" into our discussion?

I'm not bothered by the small superstitions that people have, just as I'm not bothered that some people believe in a non-religious god. In the real world, even magic pants don't work, but believing they do is a personal thing that can trigger an effect like a placebo does. Believing in your magic pants has no impact on others. It's rolling these superstitions up into a cult that I have a problem with. By cult I mean a group which exerts power by a variety of methods, but usually through "money with menaces" threats. I think it's particularly abhorrent that as a society we allow this to happen to children.

Magic

Really, that's the best term to describe him?

I disagree Simon and here's why... Firstly Genesis 1 V 1 states that "In the beginning God created the heavens & the Earth" - Therefore the Earth & the Universe could have been billions of years old before Jehovah created anything on the formless waste that was the Earth. The 1st day of Creation involving the Earth began once God turned his attention to it. So why did you quote this in defence of your point on the last page? This is from some text that you cut and pasted as proof of your argument. Why are you moving the goal posts? I can only respond to what you write.

As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each" It's not like that in any way. Hebrew contains different words for such periods of time. Just because the English word "day" has two meanings doe not mean that the Hebrew word translated as "day" has the same multiple meanings. Please sort out your quoting, I did not quote from "A Religious Encyclopaedia". Because according to Genesis, Earth and heaven were made on the first day. That's one day. You actually quoted this in the bit you cut and pasted. Who? There is another much more compelling interpretation overlooked by the author. That this is all simply a stone age story.

This is nothing to do with android. Phone Orange and tell them to fix it.

Did (s)he have an argument against that fact?

If you believe that Jesus was sent by god to save mankind, then Judas should be your hero. He was the one who caused god's will to come to pass. However John and Matthew tell us that Jesus knew Judas was going to do it, so the betrayal was of no consequence.

I think it's wifi only, but by the time it hits the uk, who knows?

No I didn't say that was the reason. I looked at the argument from both perspectives and decided that ORDER in the Universe meant an intelligence behind that ORDER. That ORDER and the Universe therefore must have been created for a purpose, otherwise an intelligence would not have created it. You stated this nonsense slightly differently when you asked for one example where order comes from chaos. I listed quite a few. There is no requirement for order to come from intelligence. Order just happens. Does "ORDER" mean something other than "order"? You forgot to tidy up the line breaks in these paragraphs when you cut and pasted them. But in a designed universe, how could a perfect creator create problem people?

As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each" It's like me saying... in my grandmother's DAY ........ I'm not speaking about a 24 hour period at all am I? It's not like that in any way. Hebrew contains different words for such periods of time. Just because the English word "day" has two meanings doe not mean that the Hebrew word translated as "day" has the same multiple meanings. Yôm Kippur is the last day of Tishri. It is one day, not ten. Are you referring to the quote 2 Peter 2:5 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man”? Because that's just the plural of day. Remember in this fable Noah had 3 sons at the age of 500 years old. So the earth was created, according to this, in a time between 7 days and 7 millennia? So just possibly this could add 7,000 years to how old you think the world is? It's neither here nor there. Regardless of this, Genesis is out of context with respect to the passage you cite. You can't pick individual words written by different authors, remove the context and claim they mean the same thing. Well you can, but that's grasping at straws. This as an irrelevance. "Evidently"? I'm assuming you are cut and pasting again as there is no part of that sentence to which the word "evidently" can apply. With respect to Genesis, the Hebrew grammar syntax, the specific word used (day) and the clear understanding of the text all indicate the word "day" is simply narrative and cannot be allegorical.

You should read "The Blind Watchmaker" (which you misquoted earlier) it does a really good job of explaining this. Yes, co-incidence is great isn't it? The moon used to be a lot closer to the Earth though. That is not a fact. This is not correct. Current theories suggest that life as we know it requires liquid water to be available in the presence of the other atoms required for organic chemistry. This does not require a certain distance from the sun. It is likely there is liquid water under the surface of Europa, which is well outside the "Goldilocks" zone. The moon is completely irrelevant.

I have no idea. Genesis 1 V 1 In the beginning God created the heavens & the Earth.. That could have taken billions of years. Really? So the Hebrew didn't use the word "yôm" which can only be translated as what we now recognise as a 24 hour period? It doesn't use any of the Hebrew words which could mean longer periods of time and "yôm" is used consistently throughout the bibile to mean a night and a day. That is simply untrue. I didn't allude to a court case, I read the fact on his wikipedia page. I'm sure one of his followers would have fixed it if it were in error.

Absolutely. And I'll defend that right. I'll also ridicule you for it. And if you turn it into a method of brainwashing impressionable people, I'm likely to take action and incite others to stop you. Please show me any post anywhere where I could be accused of briainwashing anybody. It's mumbo jumbo grenades according to Bicks so if it's rubbish I spout then presumable no one would listen? I didn't please don't look for words that aren't there. This isn't the stone age book. Note the use of the word "if" it indicates a supposition or condition. Unless the supposition is met the rest of the sentence becomes moot. Do you have any examples of people killed in the name of no god? Why are you writing atheism with a capital letter? Are you assigning a special meaning to a word which simply means "without god" or "no god"? That is a massive generalisation. Most atheists don't really care if people have a faith. You are mixing the vocal minority with the whole, like when people post on VT as if they represent all villa fans. You might be thinking of antitheists or anti-religionists. An instrument to control the populace "predicts" that someday its position will be usurped, much as it usurped its predecessors and rivals. I predict that one day something will take the place of VT. I don't think that makes me insightful, but it's the same claim the bible makes.

Simon it's hard enough posting anything on the thread tonight because it's so busy. I tried my best. Why are you saying Meyer is not a Creationist? I can find no evidence to back this up at all. I'm not. Please read what I've written. I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. You said (and I quote) "What he states is that he has no Creationist agenda" and I showed an example of how he does have a creationist agenda, by trying to make it law that creationism is taught in schools as science. This means he lied about having no creationist agenda. The Center for Science and Culture (founded by S C Meyer) have a page on wikipedia you could read. The first paragraph under "Controversies" talks about his interaction with museums. But I confess, I was mixing him up with someone from the Creation Museum. I don't understand what that part is supposed to be about. Who said the Universe is only half of 12,000 years old..... 6,000 years old? I'm sorry if I'm a year or two out, do you think it's 6016 years old rather than 6000? Don't tease, how old do you think earth is? Your opinion please, not Meyer's. I thought you were one who dismissed carbon dating out of hand. I must have mis-remembered. Carbon dating is not the only method archaeologists use, but I'm sure you'll discover this as part of your search for knowledge. So there are "there is NO evidence of human habitation or remains" and yet there are "finds that are being dug up". That's quite a leap between paragraphs. Regardless, archaeologists study the past of human life and culture. If you are correct that it's just stones, they wouldn't be there. There is no problem with this being a much older site unless you are trying to make history fit into an unchangeable time frame defined in a stone age book. You question them for specific answers while doubting their ability to date things accurately. If you don't trust their ability to date things accurately, why do you trust anything else they've said? I guess you didn't see my points about order from chaos. which was your opening gambit. You seem to have responded to all my points concerning the human players, but not the headline you introduced as a simple fact and I dismissed. This is disappointing, because I thought this may have actually been your own opinion rather than that of someone else. I guess it wasn't or you'd have been able to back up such a strong assertion.

Science doesn't happen in debates. I wouldn't want to debate with him either, what does that prove? Meyer is a good debater, that doesn't make him a scientist, nor does it make what he's arguing for correct. Scientific method is need for that, not rhetoric. As you completely ignore most of my post, are you conceding my points on order from chaos, infinity as it relates to probability (and monkeys), the fact that Meyer lies when he says he's not a creationist and that you have cut and pasted someone' else's interpretation of what Dawkins actually said in the example that you introduced? How do the archaeologists react when you imply they are liars because they have identified the artefacts as twice the age of the universe? Or are you cherry picking parts of what they say to reinforce your preconceptions? My use of "la la la la fingers in the ears" is the conclusion to a portrayal of how I observe some posters to behave in these threads. I was not quoting someone or I would have indicated it with a quote box.

We see order from chaos all over the place. Waves form in water and sand. Clouds form from water vapour. Rain forms from clouds. Snow forms from rain. Liquids form bubbles. Water carves caves. Molecules make trees. Crystals form in chemical solutions. All of those are the creation of something more complex without an external intelligence. I guess you have some special definitions for order and chaos as you have capitalised them. No scientist would ever claim to have all the answers, that's the whole point of science. As I've explained many times, science is the ongoing process of finding faults in science. Regardless of this, this was not Dawkins' quote. It is a (your?) corruption of a quote designed to explain infinity which pre-dates Dawkins by decades. No-one who understands the mathematical meaning of infinity would try to "get the computer programme he invented to demonstrate this". Dawkins wrote a programme to test something similar to this, but with all the infinities replaced with finite parameters. The programme worked as configured. I'm assuming you are regurgitating something you found on the internet due to your two fundamental errors in this paragraph. This is the person who makes his living selling tickets to his "museum" which shows dinosaurs and humans living alongside one another? I would expect scientists to attend this. Why would they not? Even scientists and atheists like a laugh. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. He's an evangelistic creationist. He's a liar and he lies. He was one of the people who drew up a legal framework to try and brainwash children into being taught creationism as science. Do you regard Dawkins as some kind of infallible prophet? That is how you portray him. He isn't the representative of some non-deity. He just this guy, you know? He doesn't speak for atheists, he speaks for himself. He's not worshipped or revered. I agree with much of what he says, but not everything. It's not like he wrote the atheist bible. Although to make this discussion fair, perhaps you should read the book that the monkey quote comes from before you feel you can discuss it. I did read them and I asked you the same question about them twice. You didn't bother to answer. I don't understand how you can claim anything based on evidence which is from before your god created the earth. Absolutely. And I'll defend that right. I'll also ridicule you for it. And if you turn it into a method of brainwashing impressionable people, I'm likely to take action and incite others to stop you. and? So the people who wanted to control and tax the populace used the same methods and the same materials. They then handed these thoughts and ideas down the generations. I bet they misquoted what went before like your creationist did to Dawkins above, hoping that their brand of quackery would acquire something by association. It's nice that that forum isn't this one. The internet would be a lot less interesting if all sites were the same. But Julie, what happens isn't arguing back, it's a regurgitation of what believers have been told, then the ignoring of any questions without a scripted answer and eventually once someone's been incited to an ad hominem attack, put fingers in ears and going "la la la la this isn't fair". But you are complaining. Saying you aren't doesn't negate the fact that you are. A bit like starting a post with "I'm not going to debate this but..."

for dodgyknees: It's a 7" android tablet not yet launched in the UK. There are people selling them in the UK for £140. Amazon haven't given a launch date for the UK yet, presumably they are still negotiating with rights holders for content, like Google Music.

But that all happened before your god created the earth.

Socrates also said "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". You set out your terms of debate clearly, you won't listen. I hope that brings you wisdom. Everyone's beliefs are there to be questioned. There is nothing special about religious beliefs.

How are those Gobleki pillars twice as old as the biblical earth?