If that really was Shakira nude, I'd begin to entertain the idea and believe that he is both benevolent and omnipotent.

As it is, the existence of Eva Mendes gives me eschatological pause.

Ty Webb wrote:As it is, the existence of Eva Mendes gives me eschatological pause.

For some reason, i glossed over this sentence and read it as "the existence of Eva Mendes gives me scatological pause."

unarmedman wrote:

steve wrote:You mean there are creationists who claim to be scientists. A couple of them.

No, that's not what I mean. But my first statement wasn't the best worded.

Creationism is faith-based.

However, there are scientists that believe in something other than evolution. (That carbon-dating is pretty inaccurate, etc., and that there are no absolute determinants for the "billions of years" theory of evolution.)

People can believe in things. The girl wants to write about "scientific arguments for creationism," and the fact is that there is not, nor can there be, any such thing.

Please....let's keep this thread going for 26 more pages....

It's so exciting...

unarmedman wrote:Please....let's keep this thread going for 26 more pages....

It's so exciting...

C/NC?: Posting in a thread to complain about how the thread has too many posts.

DrAwkward wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:As it is, the existence of Eva Mendes gives me eschatological pause.

For some reason, i glossed over this sentence and read it as "the existence of Eva Mendes gives me scatological pause."

Well, I do get a little cramp low down in my belly when I see her sometimes.

unarmedman wrote:However, there are scientists that believe in something other than evolution.

There are no biologists who dispute the fact of evolution. Evolution is the basis of modern biology.

There are creationists (or "Intelligent Design Proponents") who have collected scientific degrees in order to lend some kind of authoritative weight to their crackpot theories, but they are not biologists.

There are scientists of various discplines (including biologists) who are Christians/otherwise religious, but only the crackpots dispute the fact of evolution.

mb

Fuck, this is still going?!?

I hate to shock this to some of you guys, but God(s) ain't real, they're a bit like Santa but for adults...

The biggest problem in the whole creationist argument is if a creator created the university, who created the creator?

The principle of Darwinist evolutionary theory is very simple, elegant and explains the path from simplicity to complexity in a totally clear and logical way.

God isn't necessary, never was.

Gramsci wrote:The biggest problem in the whole creationist argument is if a creator created the university, who created the creator?

Look, some things science can't explain. The idea of God is so vast and complex that the idea must have had some sort of, you know, designer.

Gramsci wrote:Fuck, this is still going?!?

I hate to shock this to some of you guys, but God(s) ain't real, they're a bit like Santa but for adults...



God isn't necessary, never was.

Yes but you can't conlusively prove this. I'm not saying a "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the explanation. Did you already die and have been reincarnated?

Science rationalizes what can be tangible for us based on empiricism. Other anomanlies can't be so easily explained. Like what happens beyond death.