Please do not take any offensive “hate mail” written by Christians as an example of Christianity. We are not very good Christians; we who use words of hate. You must understand, however, that you have completely pissed us off. This site is just stupid. The concept is stupid. I can give you evidence against evolution if you so desire.
I do sort of agree that ID should not be taught in schools, but neither should evolution. It is wrong that evolution, classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is taught as a fact. Teaching evolution in schools is just as offensive to us as teaching ID in schools is to you. We are all people.
The majority of Christians do not want to press our beliefs upon anybody else. The same cannot be said for scientists, it appears. Plus, while Christians want to bring wayward people to God for the wayward people’s sake, scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it. So, there is still a difference between the two sides.
I think this whole fight is futile. It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…
-Yet Another Christian
What piratey!!??? You mean there’s no invisible guy in the sky who made his son bleed buckets so he wouldn’t be so pissed off at humanity?? Rainbows aren’t a promise that he’s not going to kill everyone again? The world doesn’t have four corners?? Oh NOOOOOO!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I appear to have stumbled upon a very interesting debate here, very lively. I have to say, that as a non-christian, I find the idea of teaching ID in schools ridiculous and particularly offensive. I would choose not to expose my children to a school that taught this as a SCIENCE. To the people who believe that evolution shouldn’t be taught in science lessons in schools I would say that that is your choice, take them out of science lessons. It is not my problem if you want to stunt your childs learning by denying them a knowledge of science. It is your child’s life you are ruining. And you certainly cannot expect you child to be taught science but not the THEORY of evolution – to exclude this teaching would undermine the rest of the subject. You have to learn the whole lot – it is your choice if you agree with it or not, after all that is the beauty of THEORY, once you have looked at all the evidence for and against you can weigh it up and decide for yourself what you believe.
It astounds me that a lot of christians can’t seem to comprehend the fact that, whilst they fully believe in something that has no actual factual evidence, and is summed up in a book that was compliled a long time ago, the beauty of science is that we are never 100% sure about anything. Science teaches us to constantly question anything and everything. No real scientist would ever be so arrogant to claim any theory was 100% correct, and it is this constant doubt which we use in a constructive way: Science is the constant search for truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree, evolution is wrong, all scientific theories are wrong. if you love your god you will declare your hate of all science, burn your car, burn everything eletric and burn all your house. If you do all this your god will be pleased. jump off a cliff he will catch you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kamni – nice!!
Seth, well what can I say that hasn’t been said already? Well when I was in high school many many moons ago, I remembered my biology teacher. He was a Christian Brother (yes, I attended a Christian Brother’s college – hey I was young and nieve). Well as you may know Christian Brothers did have a reputation for doing very bad things to little children – but I never saw or heard of that in my school. Back to the point… My teacher taught me the theory of Evolution (it was a theory then, just like today). There was NO religious Dogma thrown in, just straight science (please look that word up in dictionary). Theory (as explained by many above) is The Most Likely Scientific Explanation for something. This is not just a wild left-field idea, this involves research (look that one up also), testing, observation (ditto), evidence and evaluation. ID seems to LACK ALL of this process, yet still calls itself a what – “SCIENCE”????
Last point, you say you believe in microevolution and adaption. Hmmmm.
I believe that Jesus Christ was half resurrected! His tomb was partly empty. Maybe JC wasn’t the Son of God, but could have been his 2nd nephew!
Still waiting for our promised evidence! Waiting waiting waiting waiting………
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First off I would like to throw out that I am not committed to Intelligent Design nor Evolution. People are overlooking the original posters comment, this person is not in favor of eliminating sciences being taught in school so let us not go to extremes by saying ignorant comments like let’s throw out math and history as well. I want my kids to be able to learn both sides of the coin and make up their own decisions based on open mindedness, so to the point I’m not threatened by the thought that (gasp) somebody would teach my kids creationism, nor am I threatened that (jeepers) someone would tell them about evolution.
For me, there is not enough evidence to support evolution and in fact geneticists have tracked the geneological tree down to one single woman, no monkies or shrews to be found in that genealogical tree. Lucy was 2 foot tall monkey that walked upright and liked climbing trees – this is nothing like any man I’ve ever seen and there’s nothing in between that shows any type of progression and as for cro-magnon men I still see them when ever I visit a gym. Many evolutionists still point to the Piltdown fossils even though it was proven a hoax.
On the flip side, why are Christians so threatened by evolution. The Old-Testament says that God created a man from the earth. Maybe God set forth the mechanizations for evolution. If you believe it as literally 7 days of creation then your a bigger fool then anyone.
My biggest irk, however was reading these rants. If you want to appear to have an intelligent argument at least know what a word means and how to spell it. “benevolent” (not benovolent) means charitable, giving, hardly an insult to Christians. Stop talking trash and give an intelligent argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…”
What about the Jews?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gunner
We not against teaching Creationism.
We believe that creationism should be taught in a religious class. And all science (Theory of Evolution included) should be taught in science class.
Simple – keep Religion (based on Faith) and Science (based on observation, evidence, testing and evaluation) seperate.
Religion is rigid while science is evolving (continiously). Science ammends it’s errors when discovered. Religion… well, no need – just need Faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
children should not be punished for their parents mistakes/ignorance/etc…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gunner,
.
Re: Human evolution, you are simply wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Or, at least, somewhere around 50 years out of date.
.
If you want your kids to learn “both sides” of the argument, then at least do them the courtesy of understanding what you’re putting in front of them: on one hand, one of the most elegant and widely-supported pieces of science in human history; on the other, fundamentalist religious dogma masquerading as science. The Christian creation myth simply *cannot* be reconciled with the observable universe, cosmology, geology, biology, or even common sense. To include ID in science classes is an affront to every serious scientific disipline, and an abuse of the fundamental trust that students place in their educators: that they will be taught matters of *substance*, rooted in *truth*.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seth, I am looking for answers, but not from Christians necessarily. I guess the only answer I would like to hear from Christians as a group is “Ok, we won’t try to impose our beliefs onto everyone else in the form of teaching intelligent design in science curricula.” I guess I would also like to know what is up with the pedophile priests? And what about Tammy Faye Baker? Come to think of it, I have a lot of questions, but I don’t really want to know the answer to them. All I want to know is that you’re going to keep your religious teaching where it belongs: in your churches and homes, not in our schools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Gunner,
.
I agree with you with one condition, and that is to make sure that as important as actually teaching the children the subject you actually teach them how each of the “theories” I use that in the looses sense of the word as God and ID is a myth. But back to the point you need to teach them that evolution is supported by scientists in several fields and some of these fields have given independent evidence taht backs each other up, sometimes answers questions the other field of science has found impossible to answer.
.
VS the bible,
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If ever I have a child I am going to make sure that he or she is removed form all Religious studies and instead I will pay for them learn philosophy.
.
That way my child can still learn about religion, as Philosophy and religion are closely linked. But they learn it from a rational point of view, Philosophers are told to always search for the truth. If my child then chooses religion then so be it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yet Another Christian and Gunner please read this,
.
When people talk about the theory of Evolution they are usually confusion two very different things.
.
“The theory of Evolution” refers to HOW evolution occurs NOT if it occurs.
.
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a FACT. Since Darwin’s time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth’s long history (Evolution for those more educated amoungst us).
.
This is an important distinction, and one that creationists would like to keep obscured.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to bring home my point the only way evolution is false that I can come up with is
1) descarte was correct and we are living in a demons fantasy world (lets hope not or where all fucked)
2) A supreme being truely has nothing better to do with his time than to plant evidence everywhere and personelly tamper with carbon dating equipment (BAD God!)
3) Every single last scientist over the last 100 years has got together to have a laugh (if those bastards don’t let me in on the joke soon I will not be best pleased)
.
.
If you say that Evolution is not true then you may as well say that the earth is flat and Dinosaurs never existed, (in fact if you truely believe in ID then you most strongly deny Dinosaurs or any other creatures as they really do bugger up your theory some what).
.
If you say the “Theory of evolution” is not a fact then you are correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you are in the mood to understand further what the ID people are trying to push you can check out this site.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TeachingResources.htm
Just thought some may want to know what the other side of the story is. Its a bit hard to look at because, well, it’s just bad science, and the evidence is basically “well, things are really complicated” but its still fun to read if you’re in the mood to get annoyed even further.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I ever have a child, he or she will only be taught to worship His noodleness.
I actually have always wondered how most members of the world’s major religions can reconcile the fact that their counterparts in other religions, who are “completely wrong”, seem to believe as fervently as they do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, Pickles, that is a scary site. To someone who doesn’t have a scientific background (therefore most of the general public), those arguments make ID sound completely reasonable. They take all the classic Creationist/ID arguments and package them ready -made for the classroom.
.
I’m almost ready to give up. What has science ever given us? Let’s just go back to living in caves and praying to the great sky gods for a good hunt.
.
Ignorance is so much easier.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry just surfed in…
you have completely pissed us off
=== pissing in a river?
Published by henderob October 23rd, 2006 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism).
Please do not take any offensive “hate mail†written by Christians as an example of Christianity. We are not very good Christians; we who use words of hate.
=== the religion of hate? int’resting… you piss me off
You must understand, however, that you have completely pissed us off. This site is just stupid. The concept is stupid. I can give you evidence against evolution if you so desire.
=== this concept is as your concept ::: shaped by God as his counterpart
I do sort of agree that ID should not be taught in schools, but neither should evolution. It is wrong that evolution, classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is taught as a fact. Teaching evolution in schools is just as offensive to us as teaching ID in schools is to you. We are all people.
=== so you’re against science? why?
The majority of Christians do not want to press our beliefs upon anybody else. The same cannot be said for scientists, it appears. Plus, while Christians want to bring wayward people to God for the wayward people’s sake, scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it. So, there is still a difference between the two sides.
=== it’s the opposite way I guess… you got rich with selling bibles and preaching some fake god…
I think this whole fight is futile. It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…
=== wrong! I don’t hate Christians! They’re my neighbours as a Belgian old man, they’re from Ukrain and ortodox believers – well I can ensure you that I’m not against them! It’s a parent (all alone) with 3 kids 2 raise, this looks more christian than all your blablabla…
-Yet Another Christian
-Yet Another FSM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well with stellar argument you gave quote “you are wrong, wrong, wrong.” how could I possibly argue with your logic, you got me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good for you Gunner!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ID’s best arguments–
Well, everything’s so complicated, it CAN’T have happened without Go–erm… some “unidentified” creator.
Evolution is JUST A THEORY! I DON’T KNOW WHAT A THEORY REALLY IS!!!!1eleventyone
It’s not fair to teach evolution, a scientific theory, in science, and teach intelligent design, a religious/philisophical idea in a religion/philosophy class!!
Did I miss any?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
let me tell you, there is alot more evidence proving evolution than the ideas of christianity. the fact that god impregnated a random woman with a man that walked on water and fed one fish to 500 is utterly stupid. the idea that some magical man that dances around in the sky with fairies and angels created the earth is another example of your stupidity.
sincerely,
blubbery joe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi all,
First of all, I’d like to applaud the creators of this site for making a really good joke. It cracked me up and kept me rolling for at least five minutes. Well done guys!!
It’s also great to see what a response it’s got so far, there’s some extremely interesting conversations going on in these posts.
For those of you debating ID vs evolution, I’d like to draw your attention to this website itself as an example. Do you think it just evolved on a computer somewhere and somehow popagated itself onto the internet? Or is it easier to believe that an intelligent designer (or group of them), in this case human beings; got together and actually wrote the code behind this website? Oh and how did it get laid out so neatly and why do the links work? Is this evolution at work? Or is this ID? Oh, i’m sure there were problems along the way, and the creators would have refined their work as they went along and discovered them – that’s what programmers do.
In any case, it’s easier for me to believe that this website was intelligently designed and subsequently programmed and placed on a server connected to the Internet, than that some dumb computer somewhere simply decided to better the internet by eveolving yet another Internet website.
what do you think?
Oh, and for those of you wanting some evidence for ID, take a look at the arguments presented by the scientists on this website.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
And before you write it off, just let me mention that it is a nonprofit organisation, and most of it written by scientists. You can find a list of creation scientists (who support ID) under the “Get Answers” tab on the home page, just click the last link “Creation Scientists”.
Check out their credentials – I did, cos I didn’t believe they were real scientists. I was wrong and I am glad to admit it.
Good luck surfing everybody, hope you find the truth.
theDDR
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To theDDR:
Of course this website didn’t evolve. The internet isn’t naturally occuring. However, everything found in nature is. And it evolved that way. Why is that so hard to comprehend? After billions of years, all these atoms and photos and such got together and created organisms. It’s not so far fetched. It’s the best explanation we have given the nature of everything around us.
And PLEASE don’t bring up AiG. It’s the worst site ever. All their articles on the “scientific evidence” of ID are laughable. The one on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the “evidence interperation” ones almost make laugh. I say almost because I read them an cried. The Thermo article is just sad… he talks about the sun’s radiation causing disorder and cancer… how about plants? I guess the author never heard of photosynthisis… but that’s not a nessecary part of the life of a plant, is it? And don’t get me started on the other article.
Anyway, yeah, they’ve got a list of creation scientists… woo. Check out Project Steve at http://www.natcenscied.org/article.asp?category=18 . It’s a list of scientists all who endorse evolution, who are also all named Steve. I’m sure it out-numbers the AIG list by a lot.
Anyway, I hope you wake up and find the Theory. Scientists don’t claim to hold the truth at all. We can’t even reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. But they both work. They’re both THEORIES, but guess what? They’re mutually exclusive. That means theres other stuff out there that we still need to figure out. But they’re the best estimates that we’ve got now. And until something better comes along that we can test, measure, examine, repeat, quantify and understand in terms of natural phenomina, we’ll stick with what we’ve got now. And what we’ve got now helps you in every aspect of your life.
So respect science, and respect the fact that Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE. Evolution is science. We can see it, we can classify it, and we can observe it on a microscopic level, and it happens gradually on a macroscopic level. We won’t be thrown back into the dark ages, and we won’t submit to your preaching and illogical, irrational, supernatural explanations. Deal with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, and for those of you wanting some evidence for ID, take a look at the arguments presented by the scientists on this website. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Duno! It’s a gunsite. You fool you can’t even defend your own religion without a gun. Pitty you!
S*rry but me as an european i’m not used to gunsites = looks ye are so afraid of truth that you escaped towards guns
What’s next? Blowing up the USAmilitary in some building in yer country? Becoming extremeright?
What’s next2? Becoming a worshipping christian named Osama Bin Laden?
Sad, sad, sad…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Go and learn what the formal definition of a scientific theory is (as opposed to a hypothesis, and a law) before deriding evolution as “only” a theory, being promulgated as a “fact”. It will help you avoid embarrassing yourself again in the future. When trying to articulate an argument, it is helpful to understand the words you are using.
2. If you can provide “evidence against evolution”, I (and every biologist on the planet) would love to hear it. No, I’m not being sarcastic. If you (or anyone else) can provide any evidence that would disprove, or is in unreconcilable disagreement with, evolution by natural selection, we truly, honestly, really would be ecstatic to see it. It would dictate a complete re-think of how our world works, and would be embraced as a stepping stone to further research and discovery. Unfortunately, all such claims made have thus far failed to live up to the moniker of “evidence”.
3. Evolution is taught in schools because it is the single best explanation for the natural world that we are a part of, supported by enormous amounts of independently convergent evidence.
4. Scientists do not aim to “get rich” from teaching evolution or “converting” people to believe in it. Most of us would simply like for other people to engage a few neurons and think for themselves, before blindly accepting evidence-free religious dogma as “fact”. The same cannot be said for numerous (particularly Christian) churches, and especially evangelists, some of which are exceptionally adept at parting willing congregations from their money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I suffer from a wheat allergy. Have I been forsaken, or is this just another test of my faith?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
shaken_but_not_stirred – Gnocci is the go for you (pasta made from potatoes)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Pissed off Christian,
You must pray, and asked to be filled with His Noodly Appendage – when you have the taste of meatballs in your mouth, you will know truth…
May you noodle always be wet…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Pissed off Christian,
You must pray, and asked to be filled with His Noodly Appendage – when you have the taste of meatballs in your mouth, you will know truth…
May your noodle always be wet…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I come back to read this site once in a month or so, that is when I get bored. I realized that many people who access this site do not know an important scientific principle. It is called Occam’s razor, and EVERY scientific theory must pass the test of Occam’s razor to become an accepted theory. The reason is obvious. There can be hundreds of theories that can account for a given observation. Occam’s razor tells us that we should accept ONLY the simplest one.
It is possible to place the earth at the center of the universe and at the same time describe the movement of planets, stars, galaxies and all other entities, if one is permitted to use infinite number of equations! The simple fact is that we cannot afford to teach every one of such alternative theories in schools, especially with limited resources the schools are given.
Back to evolution, evolution is the simplest theory we have today in the field in question. One thing certain at this point about ID is that there is NO chance that ID will make the theory any simpler. So, it should be thrown away, period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seth said:
Seth
Oct 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 am
Let me set one thing straight. Scientific things such as gravity, electricity, nuclear technology have all been proven. You can show me those right now and I will believe they exist.
To Seth: You need proof to believe? Damn, Seth, you’re fucking me up here, man. I thought you guys worked on the faith model. You crazy-ass christians would make more sense if you picked a method and stuck to it. I know, I know, don’t mock your faith. I’m sorry, but the problem from my personal perspective is that your faith won’t seem to fuck off and leave my ‘faith-light’ alone. What did John Cleese say in Life of Brian? “How should we fuck off, oh lord?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Life of Brian :)
The lyrics at the end of this movie they’re funny… Sung by all those guys on the +:
“Allways look at the bright site of life”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Idiotic. Why is science considered “proven”? Because the proof, my dear subject, is AN OBJECTIVE ONE! ANYONE can go and repeat the experiments for gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and heck evolution.
The so-called “proof” for ID is “belief”. Duh go to this little page:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_Thinking
.
Give me an experiment to prove this god thing that is not so subjective as to mock the word “experiment” itself then we’ll see. THAT, dear, is called “evidence”, not your subconscious slurs.
Dumpling: err Occam’s razor only applies when both theories describe exactly the same things and both are completely valid in terms of predictive power. I don’t see how ID makes the ‘cut’, per se. It hasn’t even come up with a real prediction at all, so since when was ID a real theory?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@theDDR
“Check out their credentials – I did, cos I didn’t believe they were real scientists. ”
.
Real scientists? Do you mean beacause they have letters to their names. (Are the letters even real?) Have you ever heard the terms “junk science” and “ulterior motive”? I am not sure who your real scientists are, but if they are pushing ID then they have already been dismissed by all credible scientists. All these guys did was pick out a few concepts from the work of others and say they can’y be true coz an intelligent designer (god) did everything. You’ll never see their “science” published in any repected science journals. Well maybe, if any of the journals carry a humour section in back just for a laugh. I don’t think they do though, as they are preoccupied with real reseach and science! These ID junk people are just playing on people like you who have absolutely no idea, as well as no training as to what constitutes reputable science. (i.e. Real. Not pretend. Supported by “real” evidence. Not bullshit made up to impress the ignorant.)
Throw your support and especially your money behind these “real scientists” cos that is all they want from you. No questions asked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, you remind me of the “christian” universities that pump out PhDs like good ol’ christian mom and dad without condoms.
Sure you’ve got a doctorate, from the Amish University of Uranus…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Plus, while Christians want to bring wayward people to God for the wayward people’s sake, scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it”
Know any scientists that have made more than a million bucks out of “preaching” evolution? Around the 0 mark. Want to know the number of televangelists that have made more than a million? ’nuff said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anyone want any PhDs? I can krank them out for A$100 a pop in any chosen field you like. How about the new sciencific frontier of Intelligent Design.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DDr:
The same spurious watchmaker argument eh? You see a website in a sea of non-websites, and assume it was made. Meh, there a good dozen separate arguments that refute the watchmaker, I’ll pick my favourite.
The website was most certainly made out of known components (i.e. a server and a guy with no job :p). What constituents was the universe made out of, then? Why must they need creating? To compare “construction” and “creation” is bollocks.
I’ve never seen anything appear out of thin air, (an increase in mass without a loss in mass or energy, technically); i.e. I have never observed this fabled “creation” process which you are so anxious to compare construction to. Until observed, I can only assume any and all such processes are utterly irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Obscurans
Oct 24th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Idiotic. Why is science considered “proven�
=Because it’s based on evidence
Because the proof, my dear subject, is AN OBJECTIVE ONE!
=Yeah you’re objective… I guess that could be a science issue
ANYONE can go and repeat the experiments for gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and heck evolution.
The so-called “proof†for ID is “beliefâ€. Duh go to this little page:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_Thinking
.
Give me an experiment to prove this god thing that is not so subjective as to mock the word “experiment†itself then we’ll see. THAT, dear, is called “evidenceâ€, not your subconscious slurs.
=well well if everyone can do those experiments why don’t you do them? maybe you can proove something (unless you have a reptilebrain)
Dumpling: err Occam’s razor only applies when both theories describe exactly the same things and both are completely valid in terms of predictive power. I don’t see how ID makes the ‘cut’, per se. It hasn’t even come up with a real prediction at all, so since when was ID a real theory?
= the Occam’s razor is the philosophical theory ’bout excluding all that’s worthless (like religions)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Give me a real experiment for ID and I’d do it. But can you?
Occam’s razor doesn’t have to work. 1+2*5-7+1 = 2+2*5-7
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@obscurans
indeed I can
it’s 1 + 2 * 5 – 7 + 1 * phi
you did forgot phi!
without phi you can’t proof nothink of yer religions!
sayonara
head
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Obscurans, theoretically, ID is just as accurate at predicting events as evolution is, because on a fundamental level, it does not deny the occurrence of evolution, merely that there is a guiding force (other than probability) behind it.
It predicts the same thing, it just throws in another variable, and there is no evidence around that can disprove it. Sad fact, but true, and it won’t stop me regarding ID as a sick joke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yeah,
long live the queen, and how is thias not a sick joke???????
even my website that is not working is not this stupid
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chap…. how old are you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hi everyone, i totally agree with lost wookie, long live the queen and how do i make a website??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Aussie-
.
Be that as it may the Evolution itself still proves the bible and other holy books mislead or openly lied about how man come about.
.
And if it can lie about something that big then why can’t it lie about the existance of God.
.
We many not be able to disprove Gods existance for obvious reasons, like they can’t disprove the existance of the FSM but we can pick holes in the holy books that discredits them enough for people to at least start to question. And you will usually find once they start to question such beliefs it is enough, as questioning goes against Faith. And thats the best we ca do to bring down the Myth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Thias’ was one of the early prophets of the Spaghetti Monster. He is far from a sick joke. He met his end hideously scalded in a vat of molten tomato sauce. I have never resorted to the ridiculing of the heinous deaths purported in the Bible or other horror novels. Please have a respect for OUR mythical figures.
Oh. And the queen is dead, murdered by some real arseholes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, don’t get me wrong, God a la bible is easily disprovable if the text in question is taken literally, and I heartily support any effort to deconstruct it (with LOGIC, let’s not drop to their level).
.
What I am trying to say however, is that ID relies on the mechanism of the opposing theory (evo.) PLUS a matter of the mind (belief in untestable being; repeating countless earlier posts, check Hume’s Dictum).
.
Just for the record, I am a devoted atheist (unless we are regarding the FSM of course :p).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey guys,
Wat do you think of chaps run off posts:
Chap Oct 24th, 2006 at 5:59 am
Yeah, if you eat spaghetti, what happens????
you are all atheist demons. die.
all of amen.com has responded here. :)
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!
.
39 Chap Oct 24th, 2006 at 5:59 am
Yeah, if you eat spaghetti, what happens????
you are all atheist demons. die.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!
.
Chap Oct 24th, 2006 at 6:04 am
yeah,
long live the queen, and how is thias not a sick joke???????
even my website that is not working is not this stupid
.
Chap Oct 24th, 2006 at 6:17 am
hi everyone, i totally agree with lost wookie, long live the queen and how do i make a website??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0