hey - how about Gabrielle - hung with huge titties... smiting my face ever rightfully so. thou motor boat shall droppeth and they face shall be smothered forthwith
hey - how about Gabrielle - hung with huge titties... smiting my face ever rightfully so. thou motor boat shall droppeth and they face shall be smothered forthwithSo be it. Each Night for one Lunar Cycle, Gabriel the Hung shall smite thee. Thy wails shall be heard by many and they shall know that 6127 is the Holy Age of the Firmament and all contained therein.
hey - how about Gabrielle - hung with huge titties... smiting my face ever rightfully so. thou motor boat shall droppeth and they face shall be smothered forthwith
Sigh.....
It's not the consensus of some random scientists that determines if something should be held as theory or not. It is also backed up by mounds of evidence and observation.
Stop trying to backhandedly discredit the scientific method.
Why is it that if one group of scientists come up with a theory, you are willing to accept it. But if another group of scientists say the theory is wrong, they are confirmed wackos and looked down upon? Both went to the same schools, have the same jobs, and yet you are more willing to believe one over the other, with no real intimate knowledge of the subject yourself?
They made a movie about this very problem.
Why is it that if one group of scientists come up with a theory, you are willing to accept it. But if another group of scientists say the theory is wrong, they are confirmed wackos and looked down upon? Both went to the same schools, have the same jobs, and yet you are more willing to believe one over the other, with no real intimate knowledge of the subject yourself?
They made a movie about this very problem.
Why is it that if one group of scientists come up with a theory, you are willing to accept it. But if another group of scientists say the theory is wrong, they are confirmed wackos and looked down upon? Both went to the same schools, have the same jobs, and yet you are more willing to believe one over the other, with no real intimate knowledge of the subject yourself?
They made a movie about this very problem.
Ben Stein -August 18, 2007-: The credit crunch is way overblown. The [financial institutions] are being given away; they're so unbelievably cheap...The subprime problem is a problem, but it's a tiny problem in the context of this economy...It's a buying opportunity, especially for the financials, maybe like I've never seen before in my entire life.
Why is it that if one group of scientists come up with a theory, you are willing to accept it. But if another group of scientists say the theory is wrong, they are confirmed wackos and looked down upon? Both went to the same schools, have the same jobs, and yet you are more willing to believe one over the other, with no real intimate knowledge of the subject yourself?
They made a movie about this very problem.
Creationism is no Theory btw and Stein is no scientist.
And right here is the problem. IMMEDIATELY as soon as anyone says something against evolution, the whole conversation dissolves into anti-creationism. The only people that ever bring up creationism are anti-creationists.
You are so deluded in your beliefs that you can't even comprehend the possibility that they are wrong, and ignore anyone that says so. The contradictions in your beliefs rank right up there with the worst religions on the planet.
And right here is the problem. IMMEDIATELY as soon as anyone says something against evolution, the whole conversation dissolves into anti-creationism. The only people that ever bring up creationism are anti-creationists.
You are so deluded in your beliefs that you can't even comprehend the possibility that they are wrong, and ignore anyone that says so. The contradictions in your beliefs rank right up there with the worst religions on the planet.
waaaah, wrong. Creationists bring up Creation all the time. If someone brings it up and Creation is not even part of the discussion, then you might have a point. However, what opposing Theories to Evolution exist that are not part of Creationism? Pretty much none.
Incorrect. In the thread with the video from the Atheist Conference, I brought up a scientist who wrote a book against evolution. The first reply was from someone posting a debate with the same guy showing how he was a wacko. The debate proved my point, since that is the first thing the evolutionist attacked. He brought up religion and creationism and all that nonsense, without a single shred of defense for his beliefs. When he was done, Simmons responded first to point out he wasn't religious nor did he believe in creationism, and then went on to defend his reasoning why evolution is incorrect.
Every single time I have ever seen someone go against evolution, evolutionists are hostile and start the anti-creationist bandwagon. The people against evolution are not all creationists. They aren't even all religious. There is actual reasoning to why they do not believe in evolution.
Instead of blindly accepting evolution, actually go study the subject and read about the reasons against it.
You forgot to whine about the important part: What was the guys position?
My problem isn't people's position. It's the attitude. Evolutionists attack religion and insult them all the time, while acting exactly like a religion and having what amounts to a religious belief. Believe this or you are an idiot. The top pro-evolutionists say this outright. Worse than Christian Science. You should try to get Tom Cruise as your spokesperson.
Only one theory is backed by the evidence in reality, and has been tested and confirmed scientifically.Why is it that if one group of scientists come up with a theory, you are willing to accept it. But if another group of scientists say the theory is wrong, they are confirmed wackos and looked down upon?
I do have intimate knowledge of the subject. It isn't even that inaccessible to anyone wanting to learn.Both went to the same schools, have the same jobs, and yet you are more willing to believe one over the other, with no real intimate knowledge of the subject yourself?
And it was as poorly substatiated as creationist arguments always are.They made a movie about this very problem.
Believe me, if there were a group as vocal as creationists trying to get the germ theory of disease out of med schools or the kinetic theory of gases out of chemistry classes, they would be met with the same derision as creationists.My problem isn't people's position. It's the attitude. Evolutionists attack religion and insult them all the time, while acting exactly like a religion and having what amounts to a religious belief.
Given your apparent disability to accurately apprehend reality, your personal ideas about who is or is not an idiot are of no consequence.Believe this or you are an idiot.