What can I say, Google Reader was empty, there was nothing to do on the internet (amazingly), and your competition popped up.

What's that saying? If there's a job worth doing, it's worth doing well. If there's a random competition on the internet, it's worth going completely over-the-top on.

My guess (and I worked very hard at this) is Glacier Point: 37°43'44.26"N 119°34'22.78"W

I worked it out by looking where you lived on your blogger profile, then doing a google image search for waterfalls in california. I found one called Upper Yosemite Falls that matched perfectly. I then searched for this in Google Maps, and found a decent place you could take the picture from.

I entered these coords into Google Earth, and recreated the picture just to make sure: http://atheistblogger.com/yosemite.png

I'm 99% sure that is where you were; it was fun working it out though :D

Edit: On second thought, it could also be at Union Point: 37°44'3.73"N 119°35'14.59"W but the elevation seems a tad low.

Yes, an agnostic atheist. I've never denied being one. Your point being?

No, there are plenty of options here, but only two if she doesn't want to be a hypocrite. Here are the options:

1) Jennie is not a hypocrite and thinks that nobody should write anything negative about anything else.
2) Jennie is not a hypocrite and thinks that is is fine for people to write negatively about anything else.
3) Jennie is a hypocrite and thinks that people A shouldn't write negative things about people B, but people B should be able to write negative things about people A.

There are plenty of options within the last option (3), but it would make her a hypocrite. As soon as you start favoring one opinion over another, we have fascism.

Now, I assumed that she wasn't a hypocrite (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and who wants to be a hypocrite?), so she either must say that if atheists cannot talk about religion, religion cannot talk about atheists, or that we can all talk about anything we want.

She made it quite clear that she didn't want atheists talking about religion, so there is only one option remaining. Of course, if she wants to be a hypocrite she can enforce a fascist viewpoint, but she didn't come across as such a person to me.

Oh, and assuming only makes your argument weak if you don't assume form both sides. I did that; I assumed that she wasn't a hypocrite and that she was and evaluated where her argument would lead her in both cases.

Meh. At the end of the day she contacted me. She knew I ran a blog (her entire first comment was about it). I respected her privacy by getting rid of her last name. If she comes here and lets her full name be known, that is her right. There is currently no difference between what I have done and writing the same thing but putting "anonymous" next to it, or claiming some other story.

Well I'm sure the cancer survivors who got cured through chemotherapy would love to know that you think so low of it. I'm sure you have more knowledge on the subject than the millions of doctors who use it.

That said, Chemotherapy is far from perfect. In some instance it can be life-saving, in others it can only extend the months or years people have left. Luckily for Daniel, the Hodgkin lymphoma he has is one of the ailments curable by chemotherapy.

Firstly, using the Bible against an atheist who has just posted about why the Bible is not the truth; not a good idea. I agree with you that by the Bible's standards, I am probably a very bad person, but I don't believe these standards apply anywhere in reality.

Secondly, you assert "The Bible is 100% correct" when I clearly isn't. The first book of the Bible explains a creation story that didn't take place, and we have the evidence to prove it! This fact alone (ignoring all the other mistakes the Bible has made) is enough to disprove the "100% correct" claim.

Thirdly, I do not doubt there is a creator; I just doubt the creator is an intelligent being. Why do such beings not need creators themselves? You are saying that intelligent life needs an intelligent creator, but that the intelligent creator doesn't need one. Doesn't make a shred of sense.

That's why she said this earlier on in the conversation then:

I'm sure you'll be making fun of me on your blog eventually, and you're probably even making fun of me now. That's the type of thing I would've done in the past, too. I don't blame you, in fact, I completely understand.

If someone makes bad arguments in a private correspondence to me, I will post them on my blog (using only their first name) as I always do. Unless we've previously agreed to some kind of private-only deal, I don't see anything wrong with posting stuff here, especially since someone has (a) made the effort to tell me something about my blog, and (b) has said they understand why I would make fun of it.

I always apply this to myself. I freely admit (both in society and on this very blog) that atheism may be entirely incorrect, and that there may be a God. I don't claim things are absolutely true unless there are mountains of evidence backing them up, and even then I do it tentatively.

On the contrary, I've done a lot more research into evolution that you apparently have. You accept the claims of creationists without even doing a tiny bit of research into them. Let's see how your "holes" stand up to reality shall we?

the second law of thermodynamics is contradicted by evolution

The 2nd Law states "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Too bad for your "hole", the Earth is not an isolated system; we receive energy from the Sun every single moment of every single day. If evolution really contradicts the 2nd law, then so does life itself! This is a typical creationist blunder.

the fact that the earth is moving away from the sun at a rate that would mean that if the earth is as old as evolutionists claim, the earth would have been either too close to the sun to allow any life, or it would be ON the sun

True, the Earth is moving away, but nowhere near fast enough to prove a young earth, or to mean life would not exist.

Here is a brief but detailed report concerning the actual figures: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?num...

This is yet another example of a common creationist argument. They increase the numbers, hope that nobody notices (scientists always do) and then try to create an argument that the Earth is young.

the fact that no one has ever found a transition fossil. which is REALLY crazy, because if evolution is correct, we would be finding WAY more transition fossils than regular fossils. and, i know you're going to give me some examples of supposed "transition fossils" but those have never been proven to be, without a doubt, transition fossils. and even the few you could name doesn't count because evolution claims that there would have to be many many more.

A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that was in the process of evolving into another creature. Since evolution is happening all the time, and populations rather than individuals evolve, every single fossil could rightly be called a transitional fossil. Even Homo Sapiens (us) are a transitional form between Homo Erectus and the creatures we are to evolve into millions of years from now.

The claim, like all others, that there are no transitional fossils is yet another creationist lie, and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Transitional forms are not creatures that are "half species X, half species Y", they are creatures that are evolving into a new species.

So much for your holes...