Lulz.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de3_1375258212

(August 1, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Lulz.

They actually caught that rather quickly, and then dismissed it with true Christian charity and grace, I was impressed. This reminds me of the time when a group of evolutionists tried to forge a creation research article in order to get it published in the creation peer-reviewed journals and it got rejected by each one of them for bad scientific methodology. Epic fail. .

Quote:creation peer-reviewed journals

A/K/A comic books.

Well, what did you expect? Creationism isn't exactly a science.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:creation peer-reviewed journals

A/K/A comic books.

No, also known as journals that evolutionists submit articles to that are rejected for bad scientific methodology.

---

(August 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Well, what did you expect? Creationism isn't exactly a science.

Sure it is.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: A/K/A comic books.

No, also known as journals that evolutionists submit articles to that are rejected for bad scientific methodology.

---

(August 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Well, what did you expect? Creationism isn't exactly a science.

Sure it is.

Creationism is a Science like Abstinence is a Sex Position.

In terms of real-life application, creationism is about as deep as a puddle on a level asphalt road, and is the likeness of works found in the fantasy section of a book store or library.

Statler Waldorf Wrote:This reminds me of the time when a group of evolutionists tried to forge a creation research article in order to get it published in the creation peer-reviewed journals and it got rejected by each one of them for bad scientific methodology. Epic fail.

Oh, the irony! It's too much.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Well, what did you expect? Creationism isn't exactly a science.

Sure, it is.

HAHAHA, no, it really isn't, lol. Which branch of science presupposes something based on no evidence, and after being told it's wrong by other branches of science repeatedly, still insists it's right despite not having found any evidence?

Name me one, just one.

(August 2, 2013 at 12:47 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure, it is.

HAHAHA, no, it really isn't, lol. Which branch of science presupposes something based on no evidence, and after being told it's wrong by other branches of science repeatedly, still insists it's right despite not having found any evidence?

science - fiction