I believe it is logical to believe creation since it is based on observations and not untested hypothesis.
POD Warrior Forum
[1/1/2003 12:00:00 ]
Fundie Index: 2
6/13/2007 5:09:04 PM
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
What in the hell are you smoking?
6/13/2007 9:22:52 PM
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.
and please enlighten me on how exactly one goes about testing creation?
I believe it is logical to believe in evolution since it is based on observations not untested myths.
"I believe it is illogical to believe creation since it is based on imagination and not tested hypotheses."
Creation was observed? Ya got any pictures?!
6/14/2007 9:16:55 PM
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
says there was no-one around to observe creation until it was all over.
6/28/2007 7:24:43 PM
Of course: I just saw an animal poofing out of thin air
"I believe it is logical to believe creation since it is based on observations"
Pics or you FAIL.
Wow...that statement is just wrong on sooo many levels. Fail fail fail.
Did you observe in your magic time machine, O King Russ the Mirror Maker?
8/9/2010 3:45:44 PM
Where is the fingerprint of God?
8/9/2010 10:39:30 PM
8/9/2010 11:56:45 PM
Isn't eye-witness account the
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.
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.
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.