User Profile: guz75

Member Since: June 29, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • February 2, 2015 at 1:16pm

    And thank you for your carefully thought out response to my points!

  • February 2, 2015 at 1:15pm

    But the point I’m making revolves around Fry’s response to the question he was asked. I understand the sinful world, free will side of things, I’m questioning the origins of such an abhorrent system, that this is all part of God’s plan. I understand that people may not agree with Fry’s view, or my view on the matter, but you cannot deny God’s hand in this sadistic system. There is nothing Satan can do that God won’t have knowledge of, but he still lets it happen.

  • [5] February 2, 2015 at 10:52am

    So if for example a man commits a murder in 1915, it would be reasonable that his 5 year old great, great, great grandson should die a slow painful death from cancer. So who decided it would work this way? If not God, then clearly he is not what you claim him to be. You can’t just pick and choose, either he is the all seeing, all knowing, creator of everything or he isn’t.

    People here seem very keen to absolve God of responsibility, by claiming that these things are the result of us abusing free will, but if you take an extra step back and look at it, you have to wonder who came up with this revolting system in the first place. To deny God’s hand in it is to deny his power and consequently his existence. So looking at it from a broader perspective, how can you fail to understand Fry’s position.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] January 13, 2015 at 1:18pm

    Definition of reactivate: restore (something) to a state of activity.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-5] November 3, 2014 at 11:11am

    Grown man behaves like a child, then plays the victim when he gets treated like a child. Where’s the story.

    The world history text book they use covers Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism etc. as well as Islam, or would you disagree that religion has played a role in world history? Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to try and eradicate it from history.

    This man would likely have a very narrow view of Islam if he served in Iraq, if that’s his only experience. His comments tell me all I need to know about him anyway. Being a former marine doesn’t stop you being a moronic ignoramus.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] June 29, 2014 at 1:39pm

    Gotta love the blaze. Can’t imagine why there’s such a disparity between the type of reaction you get here when some open carry proponent gets asked for ID and when a black professor get’s ID’d for avoiding a construction site.

  • [-20] May 29, 2014 at 12:36pm

    This man has told many lies about his past and about his family before now, not interested in this pathetic whiny cr*p. he’s always playing the ‘you can’t question this’ card, whether true or not he’s cried wolf too many times.

    Responses (4) +
  • November 22, 2013 at 12:41pm


    I’m well aware of the science. All you’re doing is redefining god with no evidence, because something has the appearance of design, doesn’t mean it was designed.

    Labeling the defining forces of the universe as god is just another form of apologetics, it allows god to be responsible for everything, even when science is saying otherwise. I suppose if I were to cite a snowflake as an example of something that has the appearance of design, but that we know isn’t designed, you’re going to tell me ‘ah, but god is the process that forms a snowflake’.

    It’s an idea that is a product of it’s time, when god was a foregone conclusion and had to be incorporated in to science.

    You can’t have a foot in the supernatural and the other in the natural. If god is the natural then it ceases to be supernatural.

  • November 22, 2013 at 11:20am


    How does people applying the term ‘sacred geometry’ to uniformity in nature, prove divinity? It’s a bit like people that describe everything around us as a creation and then say ‘so it must have had a creator’. it’s just circular reasoning.

  • November 18, 2013 at 12:04pm

    It’s not all about what happens behind closed doors, it’s people like yourself that seem so obsessed with that side of it.

    Also, if you choose to come to the blaze for your “”news”", you forfeit the right to use the ‘What you do behind closed doors is your business, stop trying to make it mine’ line. In case you hadn’t noticed the blaze quite intentionally pushes these stories under your nose, so you have something to froth at the mouth about. How many other news sites have such a high proportion of stories about homosexuals?? You’re effectively saying ‘don’t get in my face with this stuff’, while actively seeking it out!!??!!

    Responses (3) +
  • November 18, 2013 at 9:37am

    Yeah and sometimes adults manipulate their children into embellishing a story, so they can make some money from a book!

  • October 17, 2013 at 2:48pm

    Still no science. There is no scientific proof for design. Saying you think it looks designed isn’t science. A snowflake under a microscope appears designed, yet we know it isn’t.

    You may well be right, but until science finds evidence that supports design, it cannot be taught in a science class.

  • October 17, 2013 at 11:40am

    But I think you’re missing the fundamental problem with teaching creation in a science class; the lack of science.

    I agree it is an alternative, it certainly can’t be disproved, but there are lots of possibilities that science can’t disprove. To be taught as an alternative in a science class it must have some sort of scientific grounding, at this point there is no scientific evidence for creation, therefore it has no place in a science class.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 17, 2013 at 11:10am

    Where are you getting this nonsense (need I ask). If Darwin’s theory dealt with the origin of life, I guess he would of called it ‘The origin of life’. ‘The origin of species’ refers to Speciation, a process occurring once life has begun.

    There is no conflict between evolution and creation, that is something that has been stirred up by Ray Comfort and the like. The issue with creationism being taught in a science class is that there is nothing scientific surrounding it, it is purely belief. If you’re going to offer something as an explanation for the beginning of life in a science class, it has to have some sort of scientific grounding, wouldn’t you agree?

    Despite what you seem to believe, evolution has never claimed to answer the question of the origin of life.

  • October 6, 2013 at 2:12pm

    Seems you need to go and brush up on the creationist playbook a bit. You seem to have messed up the wordplay trick, what you meant to say was ‘no new genetic information is generated’. It’s a common creationist saying, as technically it is correct.

    Unfortunately what you said is wrong, new genetic material is added through genetic duplication. This becomes available for mutation. There are other ways in which genetic material can increase, but I’ll let you read up on those (I won’t hold my breath though).

  • October 6, 2013 at 1:06pm

    We didn’t evolve from apes, how many times does this have to be explained. We have a common ancestor, meaning we evolved in a different direction and at a different rate. Primates clearly evolved at a slower rate. There was no such thing as humans or apes at the time our common ancestor existed.

  • September 27, 2013 at 11:02am

    ‘I was brought to the fact that Macro-Evolution was incompatible with the timeframe of our universe’

    I’m curious as to how you came to this fact. I don’t want to be one of those people that demands a single answer to a question with many answers, so I’m not expecting a thesis. but I studied micro biology at university and although I dropped out to play in a band, I’ve maintained an interest in the biological sciences. I can’t say I’ve come across anything that would lead me towards your stated incompatibility.

  • August 27, 2013 at 2:45pm

    I think I need to step in and defend my country on this one.

    The CHOICE to homeschool or use private school without being bankrupted in the process.
    Private schooling is expensive everywhere, home schooling is no more expensive in the UK than anywhere else.

    The CHOICE to own a firearm.
    You can own a firearm (most don’t want to though)

    The CHOICE to start a business in an environment in which it can turn a profit.
    Started a company doing motion graphics work for TV about 18 months ago, making a lot of money.

    The CHOICE to purchase health insurance, or not.
    I chose to purchase private health insurance.

    The CHOICE between driving a glorified golf cart or something more substantial.
    I don’t even know what this means, you appear to have a heavily manipulated idea of the UK. The school run in the morning is a constant stream of massive 4x4s.

    The CHOICE to express your political opinions without fear of an audit.
    As above ‘I don’t even know what this means, you appear to have a heavily manipulated idea of the UK’. You’re far more likely to be spied on and have your rights abused for your political position in America.

  • August 24, 2013 at 3:46pm

    What about the countless countries that have imposed stricter gun controls over the years, without it resulting in genocide? Oh, of course, it doesn’t back up your inane point.

  • August 12, 2013 at 4:56pm

    Creation has no argument in the scientific field, as it is based on a fixed position with completely unreliable evidence. Creation science is entirely a manipulation of existing science and brings nothing of it’s own that hasn’t been debunked. Real science doesn’t have to disprove something that doesn’t follow the scientific method.

    I’ve studied the science and I’ve examined arguments for creationism and read a few books by intelligent design proponents and I am yet to see anything from creation and intelligent design that withstand any critical examination.

    The difference between you and me, is that you are coming from a fixed position. There are some things that regardless of what is put in front of you, you would never accept were wrong. Whereas if someone discovers something tomorrow, that wiped out the theory of evolution and it was tested and proven correct I would accept it. This is why creation has nothing to do with science.

123 To page: Go