Comments on: Nun Bun on the Run

By: Strawman

Strawman — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:05:37 +0000

Ummm lya…I am embarassed! There are nuts in all walks of life.

By: Lya Kahlo

Lya Kahlo — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:10:10 +0000

What I don’t understand is how are theist NOT embarassed by these jackasses who think stains on a wall are an aparition of the Virgin Mary, and a fucking sticky bun bears the likenes of MT. I’m embarrassed for them.

By: dan

dan — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:22:33 +0000

How come I don’t see Mother Theresa? I’m Jealous! lol

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:58:51 +0000

Marcus says:

Besides, Teresa was a psychotic bitch — I can think of far better humanitarians to find on a roll.

I sometimes think Christopher Hitchens is a psychotic drunk, but he had balls to write this.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:28:31 +0000

Frank,

I see; so, you are running away from the logical challenge. Thank you for invalidating yourself.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAA!

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:33:41 +0000

What else can you expect from a faith that turns a cracker into Jesus and orders it’s followers to eat him?

By: Ford

Ford — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:42:17 +0000

Not to get too off topic with the whole evolution thing, but in response to Frank’s last post, that would be a hypothesis, and yes, the scientists that think so are free to do research and study into it, nobody is stopping them or arguing that they should be stopped at that. But unfortunatly, they don’t have a real (testable) hypothesis, haven’t done any sort of research (because they don’t even have a real hypothesis to test) and they are claiming it’s now a theory that they need to teach (indoctrinate/proselytize) to school kids. They just have a half-formed hypothesis that isn’t really testable. All ID is is criticism of holes (most of them imaginary or misconceptions or even lies) in the theory of evolution with a little goddidit wedged in there. ID is creationism with new indoctrination tactics. Creationism has evolved.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:34:50 +0000

Marcus, I gave you my response regarding that. I don’t care if the study of ID is considered a “theory” or not (based on the official scientific guidelines for theories). It’s irrelevant. I maintain that if scientists see things in nature which indicate to them a creator of some kind then it needs to be pursued, whether or not it conforms to the criteria for a “theory.”

Rockstar perferred the term “Bullshit.”

Personally, I don’t care what you call it. But I think it is irresponsible to ignore findings in nature because they don’t conform to preconceived notions of biogenesis. In fact, that is contrary to the scientific method and betrays a bias. Don’t you think?