Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates
Yes. clearly.
Yes. clearly.
|
Conservapedia definition of atheism
|
|
Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates
Yes. clearly.
Prove it didn't happen and I'll let you punch me as many times as you want
(August 5, 2010 at 5:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(August 5, 2010 at 3:37 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Starts off fairly reasonable then gets more and more insulting as it goes on. I didnt say it started off right. I can forgive errors, its the bile that was directed in the lower reaches of the "definition" that got my blood up. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (August 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I didnt say it started off right. Ah, it's all relative I guess. To be honest, I never made it very far down the article.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too." ... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept "(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question" ... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist (August 6, 2010 at 1:56 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(August 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I didnt say it started off right. You should, you really should, turns out when we're not commiting suicide and performing abortions we're mass murdering. Didnt get quite to the bottom of the page but have no doubt by then we'd all be baby rapists or something!!
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Actually, I added the link to "Biblical Citation Needed" to further the joke...
RE: Conservapedia definition of atheism
August 9, 2010 at 3:49 am
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2010 at 3:50 am by yuriythebest.)
Quote:Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors. hmm.... soo the creationists are accusing dawkins of pseudoscience? how does one even respond to that??
With laughter.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|