1 2
#1479265
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
#1479269
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
#1479273
hera
So the earth does not revolve around the sun then.
12/7/2012 6:34:04 AM
#1479277
Mister Spak
If it originates inthe bible, then it isn't science, it's mythology.
12/7/2012 6:40:07 AM
#1479284
smartz
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
#1479290
Frostythesnowman
So your computer works on philosophical principles then? Got it.
12/7/2012 6:54:25 AM
#1479304
dionysus
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
#1479308
OhJohnNo
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
#1479309
SpukiKitty
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
#1479321
Filin De Blanc
When Pat Robertson isn't fundie enough for you...
12/7/2012 7:46:02 AM
#1479326
UHM
You are insulting philosophy and raping science. Stay with theology, it's neither.
12/7/2012 7:56:17 AM
#1479486
Nagol
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
#1479530
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
#1479593
farpadokly
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
#1479610
Mattiedef
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
#1479717
JSS
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
#1479749
Old Viking
A fundy who wants to dispel confusion.
12/7/2012 6:10:15 PM
#1479753
Alencon
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
#1479785
Iczer-four
nope try again...
12/7/2012 8:10:53 PM
#1479839
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
#1479842
Swede
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
#1479899
Justanotheratheist
No. If it supports the Biblical account(s) of creation, it is complete bullshit.
12/8/2012 2:11:12 AM
#1479926
Ebon
No, you have that reversed.
12/8/2012 4:26:53 AM
#1479927
anti-nonsense
FUNDIE FIGHT!
12/8/2012 4:28:44 AM
#1479959
[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