Current time: 1st August 2010, 06:56
![[-]](images/collapse.gif "[-]")
Alternatively, why not
a specific amount?
|
Science And The Bible - (Go to last post)
|
|
15th February 2010, 16:51
Post: #31
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Science And The Bible
Quote:then in blue where it tells you how to distinguish the differnce. I thought that was where the "magic" came in? Quote:It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. - H. L. Mencken |
|||
|
|
17th February 2010, 05:58
Post: #32
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Science And The Bible
yes just cover yourself in the blue highlighter and the bible in green and you'll be good.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
"A lot of people are unwilling to acknowledge anything that contradicts their worldview. So telling them that it's false doesn't necessarily slow them down. That's how urban legends get started for the most case. Like the woman who supposedly put her poodle in the microwave to dry it off. And it exploded." David Mikkelson (snopes) |
|||
|
|
|
17th February 2010, 07:29
Post: #33
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Science And The Bible
No magic?
How can you survive? Quote:It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. - H. L. Mencken |
|||
|
|
|||
Kudos given by (1): tackattack |
|
17th February 2010, 07:58
Post: #34
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Science And The Bible
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
"A lot of people are unwilling to acknowledge anything that contradicts their worldview. So telling them that it's false doesn't necessarily slow them down. That's how urban legends get started for the most case. Like the woman who supposedly put her poodle in the microwave to dry it off. And it exploded." David Mikkelson (snopes) |
|||
|
|
|
4th March 2010, 20:15
Post: #35
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Science And The Bible
(13th February 2010 07:24)tavarish Wrote: Who wants to click? Isnt that Ted Haggerty? (other people in lab so cannot watch) with those Beavis and Buthead nostrils? the same bible bashing homophobe found with a crackpipe and a gay massuse, didnt he get time for that? Enyone else ever noticed his eyes? that are the same as that Wendy woman Dawkins interviewd and Bush the war monger, no life in them at all, dead nothing behind them to operate them. A EE WA EE WA, WIGGY WIGGY WIGGY, PLUNGA A PLUNGA A
|
|||
|
|
|
4th March 2010, 20:47
Post: #36
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Science And The Bible
It's Ken Ham, but Haggerty is just as messed up.
Wendy Wright should be repeatedly punched in the face. |
|||
|
|
|
5th March 2010, 08:50
(This post was last modified: 5th March 2010 09:02 by padraic.)
Post: #37
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Science And The Bible
(4th March 2010 20:47)tavarish Wrote: It's Ken Ham, but Haggerty is just as messed up. That Ham bloke looks as if he already has been. Either that or he's the result of about 200 years of marriage between first degree relatives. Poor fellow has a rather startling resemblance to ferret with mange. Just looked him up.The guy's an AUSSIE! How mortifying. It's not all bad, he's from Queensland (over 2000miles from me), which is in the tropics. It's known as 'the Deep North' and holds our Bible belt as well as diverse range of scammers and crooks of all kinds. It's also where the ferals live. These are human beings who live in the rain forests and mate with the native animals. Some of their offspring have been declared new species. It's an urban myth that the average IQ of Queenslanders is 87. |
|||
|
|
|
5th March 2010, 18:13
Post: #38
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Science And The Bible
What is it with low IQs and the full beard with no tache look?
I need christianity like I need a hole in the wrist
 |
|||
|
|
|
5th March 2010, 20:48
(This post was last modified: 5th March 2010 20:48 by tavarish.)
Post: #39
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Science And The Bible
I once took Ben Stein to be a smart guy. Then I grew up, and realized he said the economy is fine and that creationism is the truth. Then he has the audacity to make commercials for a company that manages credit scores, when he's a reason for people's credit scores to drop. That, and quote mine the SHIT out of everyone that doesn't agree with his mode of thinking in terms of Intelligent Design.
He belongs in the same boat as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ted Haggard, and Wendy Wright. |
|||
|
|
|
6th March 2010, 03:24
Post: #40
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Science And The Bible
Hmmm....
![[Image: ham.gif]](http://www.rae.org/ham.gif) ![[Image: caveman_3.jpg]](http://francisanderson.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/caveman_3.jpg) Hell of a resemblance. Quote:It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. - H. L. Mencken |
|||
|
|
|||
Kudos given by (2): Synackaon, tackattack |
|
|