Quote# 91169

[in response to Pat Robertson being an old Earther]

It looks like he is confused, like a lot of Christians are as to what is science and what is philosophy. If it doesn’t support the Biblical account of creation, then it isn’t science, it is philosophy.

I aint no monkey, Theology Online 28 Comments [12/7/2012 6:26:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 35
Submitted By: Persephone 66

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Doubting Thomas

Um, I think you have that backwards. Or at least show me the scientific method which shows that biblical creation is how the universe came to be.

12/7/2012 6:29:16 AM

Leighton Buzzard

I bet you couldn't define philosophy to save your life, monkey. I'am amazed you can spell it.

12/7/2012 6:32:58 AM


So the earth does not revolve around the sun then.

12/7/2012 6:34:04 AM

Mister Spak

If it originates inthe bible, then it isn't science, it's mythology.

12/7/2012 6:40:07 AM


I still can't believe that people actually take the word of people over 2000 years ago as fact. These people need a serious dose of reality, and possibly a punch to the face.

12/7/2012 6:51:33 AM


So your computer works on philosophical principles then? Got it.

12/7/2012 6:54:25 AM


And here we have yet another fundie attempt to redefine every word in the English language. If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em!

12/7/2012 7:11:42 AM


Huh, that's interesting. The comments seem to flit between reason and mild states of delusion... and this here backwards piece of wtf.

12/7/2012 7:25:45 AM


The person is called "I ain't no monkey". I agree....monkeys are far smarter than this guy.

12/7/2012 7:27:02 AM

Filin De Blanc

When Pat Robertson isn't fundie enough for you...

12/7/2012 7:46:02 AM


You are insulting philosophy and raping science. Stay with theology, it's neither.

12/7/2012 7:56:17 AM


You're the ones who's confused if you honestly think that book of yours has any basis in reality. By the way, I'm pretty sure your computer doesn't support the biblical account of creation, so get off the internet.

12/7/2012 10:19:29 AM

Churchy LaFemme

Which Biblical account of creation? There are two, which you'd know if you'd bother to read more than Genesis One, and they don't agree.

12/7/2012 11:39:44 AM


It's not science, and it's not philosophy. It's mythology. And he's right about Bishop Ussher and his daft chronology.

12/7/2012 12:56:24 PM


Yes, you aren't a monkey. You are an Ape, penis.

And taking the bible as science is a good way to be a loony.

12/7/2012 1:22:33 PM


Geez, even Pat Robertson's feeling the heat from the science-denying fundamentalist plankton. That's one for the books!

12/7/2012 5:05:02 PM

Old Viking

A fundy who wants to dispel confusion.

12/7/2012 6:10:15 PM


Theology Online has some seriously disturbed individuals that frequent it. I know this guy and he's completely nuts.

12/7/2012 6:28:08 PM


nope try again...

12/7/2012 8:10:53 PM

Fundies Make Me Sick

Makes no sense whatsoever. The Bible is not scientific fact and the Earth is not 6,000 years old. Anyone who takes the Genesis account literally is insane.

12/7/2012 11:11:20 PM


Which account of creation? You do know there are two different creations, right? They're in the first two chapters if the Bible, after all; you must have gotten that far, at least. Right?

Even God couldn't make up his mind which order to create things in. Guess religion is philosophy, not science, then...

12/7/2012 11:15:53 PM


No. If it supports the Biblical account(s) of creation, it is complete bullshit.

12/8/2012 2:11:12 AM


No, you have that reversed.

12/8/2012 4:26:53 AM



12/8/2012 4:28:44 AM

[in response ta Pat Robertson bein a oldschool Earther]

It looks like he is trippin, like a shitload of Christians is as ta what tha fuck is science n' what tha fuck is philosophy. If it don’t support tha Biblical account of creation, then it isn’t science, it aint nuthin but philosophy.

12/8/2012 6:08:08 AM

1 2 | top: comments page