(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(February 7, 2014 at 7:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: You know, where real scientists base their conclusions on the evidence.
As opposed to creation"science" where the evidence is twisted, distorted and generally fucked up by mentally diminutive cretinist morons who've had their chromosomes painted on in order to conform to a Stone Age fairy tale written by goat fucking savages that thought bats were birds. So that they can attempt to give credence to their delusion that the creator of the infinite universe is their special friend.(and incidentally, fleece the gullible masses of even more money in the process)
That objective science.
That’s interesting because I’ve never seen the term objective science used in that way before in scientific literature (which leads me to believe you just made that definition up). What makes someone a real scientist? You do realize that it is logically fallacious to redefine a term in a self-serving manner right? I am feeling very charitable and wanted to give you a little heads up before you answered this question.
That's fine Stat, don't bother addressing my point about about creation scientists being two faced liars for jesus.
(February 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Did Ham mention instant light speed or is even he not stupid enough for that?
Quote:That’s the position AIG adheres to. It’s not a stupid position at all if you know a thing or two about relativity; which obviously you do not.No Statler, it is a fucking stupid position, and anyone with real knowledge of relativity knows that.
AIGs position is based on a pathetic need to make their fairytale appear real, nothing else.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.