1
#250460
Robbie.
Uhh buuuuuuhh?
6/13/2007 5:09:04 PM
#250516
BurntBush
I especially like the part in the babble where it talks about gawd making dinosaurs. Oh wait, it doesn't. We got the fossils dumbass, we win.
6/13/2007 6:58:13 PM
#250563
icecold
What in the hell are you smoking?
6/13/2007 9:22:52 PM
#250646
Freboy
This one would be so easy to fix, there's not point in doing it.
On a second note, the day you can verify the hypothesis that snakes can talk, please let me know.
6/14/2007 3:42:43 AM
#250654
jo_27e
and please enlighten me on how exactly one goes about testing creation?
6/14/2007 4:18:28 AM
#250679
Heather
I believe it is logical to believe in evolution since it is based on observations not untested myths.
6/14/2007 6:41:39 AM
#250691
JasoNF
"I believe it is illogical to believe creation since it is based on imagination and not tested hypotheses."
6/14/2007 7:23:00 AM
#250916
Darwin
Creation was observed? Ya got any pictures?!
6/14/2007 9:16:55 PM
#255801
Mr_Vorhias
Yeah. The observations of people from thousands of years ago...when people were even dumber than we are now.
6/28/2007 1:14:52 PM
#255847
Goosey
Even fucking Genesis says there was no-one around to observe creation until it was all over.
6/28/2007 7:24:43 PM
#1063711
Reverand
Of course: I just saw an animal poofing out of thin air
11/27/2009 6:38:07 AM
#1063746
Anon-e-moose
"I believe it is logical to believe creation since it is based on observations"
Pics or you FAIL.
11/27/2009 9:28:26 AM
#1063749
anti-nonsense
Wow...that statement is just wrong on sooo many levels. Fail fail fail.
11/27/2009 9:55:01 AM
#1190152
The Duelist
Did you observe in your magic time machine, O King Russ the Mirror Maker?
8/9/2010 3:45:44 PM
#1190220
Phisshy
Where is the fingerprint of God?
Trademark?
Serial number?
8/9/2010 10:39:30 PM
#1190226
IrinAntiChrist
Ahahahahahahhaha!!!!
ROTFLMAO
8/9/2010 11:56:45 PM
#1190227
Ling
Isn't eye-witness account the least trusted form of evidence in a court procedure?
Evolution is not an utested hypothesis, it's been tested again and again over 150 years, and each time some part of it has been found wrong or untestable it has been removed. I.e. it's getting more and more solid almost every day.
8/10/2010 12:01:46 AM
#1190231
Logic does not require belief. Also, the only observations, worth any consideration whatsoever, are the ones made first-hand, by a person of sound mind and reputable character. Anything less than that would be merely gossip/hearsay/rumor/misinformation or an outright lie, and anyone who falls for it, would be 'gullible' at best.
8/10/2010 12:22:08 AM
#1190255
Justanotheratheist
What observations? The scribblings of some semi-literate shepherds many years after it allegedly happened? You call that "tested"?
Your "logic" contains not a sub atom of anything logical.
8/10/2010 2:29:18 AM
1