Comments on: you want proof

By: Vogan

Vogan — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:32:34 +0000

Believe you have to consider all aspects in the current economic climate – personally do no think we have seen the full extent of the recesssion, so would be cautious in considering.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: luv jain

luv jain — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:44:12 +0000

Mary wasnt a virgin, she got raped and sayd insted that “god” had blessed her with his son*

*ps. i ment daughter, sory about cofusion

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: CG

CG — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:08:16 +0000

“According to your own press you believe that the universe was created by spagetti which is a theory of ID anyway.” – I had no idea that Creationist believed that the universe was made by spaghetti.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwin

Darwin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:32:27 +0000

May be it’s “bandage”, sorry.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwin

Darwin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:29:52 +0000

Arrgh! Should learn some HTML…

“Moreover, Atheists fail to consider such abundance of evidence such as stigmata”

No, we don’t!
Here is our recommendation how to get stigmatized:

1. Take a Ferrero Mon Cheri praline (European style, with liquor and a cherry inside).
2. Make a fist and let it melt.
3. Show your hands to the public from some distance.
4. Cover your hands in bondages from that day on.

(Suggested by the German satire magazine Titanic.)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwin

Darwin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:28:10 +0000

Oops, there is something missing! Again:

>Moreover, Atheists fail to consider such abundance of evidence such as stigmata

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwin

Darwin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:22:03 +0000

>Moreover, Atheists fail to consider such abundance of evidence such as stigmata

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Luny the Luny

Luny the Luny — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:56:28 +0000

hope that guy aint christian coz there is no proof no scientific proof of any god like person or jesus for that matter…but ach well tis best saved for another day

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Giant leprechaun

Giant leprechaun — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:22:59 +0000

I don’t understand why christians refuse to read their own bible if they’re so religous or w/e they say… Doesn’t it say something about respect other people even if they have different values / beliefs?

If you’re so sure in yourselves that god is real and that you will go to heaven why do you feel the urge to get on this site and abuse us? If you were really so sure you would stop pushing your values on us when you know it will only aggravate us do you think you can make us all suddenly change our minds?

Furthermore i’d like to add that stigmata is caused by humans not god their is no evidence that stigmata is caused by god there has been no confirmed case of stigmata since 1938 or w/e i forget and even that doesn’t count because it has not been under the scope of reasonable scientific scrutiny

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: One-eyed Wonderkin

One-eyed Wonderkin — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:29:04 +0000

I find it a bit sad that Mr. or Ms. Wolf does not even bat an eye, when he says that CoFSM has an ID theme. I mean, who knows, scientific evidence may have all been planted by the FSM to raise doubt and weed out non-believers. You know, the same reason the FSM invented god and jesus – to test the faithful.
.
No one is saying all american are smart, but there is a scary number of americans that are pretty dim on a good day with lots of rest.
.
damn, I got to get out of this country.
.
Arr, time to claim and island for myself.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: PastaPirate

PastaPirate — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:17:35 +0000

“Moreover, Atheists fail to consider such abundance of evidence such as stigmata, appearance of the virgin at Fattima and other occurances reported by relyable witnesses. Since when is it that only a scientist is able to make and record an observation?”

1.) Eye witness are not reliable evidence.
2.) Scientists carefully record their data and findings in such a fashion that other scientists can recreate the experiment and physically recreate the observations.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: PastaPirate

PastaPirate — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:11:59 +0000

A 2 page document written by someone whose agenda involves debunking the theory of evolution and “proving” ID is science does not overrule the piles of fossil and geological evidence.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: angryyoungatheist

angryyoungatheist — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:36:09 +0000

I love it when science and god come together, here’s my id theory.
if god exists (laughable), then the bible claims he made us in his own image.
in the beginning of evolutionary theory, the first organism was a single celled amoeba.
Creationism and evolution have now shown in unison that god is therefore an amoeba, and we have evolved beyond him.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: d4m4$74

d4m4$74 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:04:38 +0000

your message amuses me, that’s all, you are trying to offend us, which will not work, we deal with stupid christians every day, you are no exception

there is no proof at all for the ID theory, DNA is similar, so?
the real scientific explanation is that we all come from the same thing, not god, but one-celled creatures which form colonies, god is not responsible for our existence, it’s coincidence and DNA,

and the FSM ofcourse

RAmen

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Etay

Etay — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:38:01 +0000

Funny how you mention “scientific” and “God” in the same paragraph…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: DutchPastaGuy

DutchPastaGuy — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:12:27 +0000

I’ll join in that beastlt12, RAmen to the post by A Voice of Reason. Welcome btw.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: beastlt12

beastlt12 — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:23:48 +0000

*All together now*

.
.
.

rAaaaaaaaaaaaaamen
.
.
.
(Sorry, I was raised Catholic. I’m too used to really streching those replies out, into more of a chant really)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: A Voice of Reason

A Voice of Reason — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:53:28 +0000

Dear Sir, Madame, or Most Commendable Canine,

I believe there have been some serious misunderstandings here. First off, let me say that telling people to get fucked does not make them particularly inclined to take you seriously. It does not speak particularly well of your confidence in your own position if you feel the need to resort to profaning others.

I looked up the link you provided in your post and read it thoroughly, very interested and hopeful to see evidence for Intelligent Design. I’d never heard any convincing ID evidence before now, so I was eager to see if I could finally find some and learn enough about ID’s position to form an opinion on its validity.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I personally think that you, your Mr. Dembski, and in fact a large part of the American public, have suffered a complete misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science is, quite simply, the practice of not jumping to conclusions. For example, take this “Message Theory”, which I have never heard of until now and, truthfully, find rather distressing. The premise, as I understand it, is that the similarity of the structure of all organisms is a sort of “message” indicating that they all have the same superhuman designer. Won’t you agree that this is jumping to a rather large conclusion? If we study life and find that most of it is quite similar, it’s quite a huge step to go from “Animals are made from the same molecules” to “There must be a superhuman being who designed all of this and made all the animals from the same molecules so that, once we matured enough to develop science, we would be able to figure out the existence of the superhuman being”.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Intelligent Design is far from impossible. Personally, I’m quite fond of it. But scientifically — that’s the key, scientifically — it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If, tomorrow, it was announced that scientists had discovered conclusive evidence venerating Intelligent Design, I would be among the first to cheer and convert. It is quite possible that this will happen someday. However, science — true science — can be conducted only when the scientist has a mind free from any bias. You can’t find out what’s really going on if you interpret everything you see in the framework of an already-existing belief.

You can believe whatever you want. You can worship who- or whatever you want. I don’t care. You can cry Intelligent Design in the streets, you can live your life by it, you can write pamphlets on it or do whatever your heart desires to do. It’s really none of my business. But it is, above all other things, a belief. And you cannot pass it off as science. You have a wonderful belief; call it a belief. Call it a religion. Don’t call it science, because it’s not. Saying “if we found some life that didn’t follow life’s basic rules, then the message would be false” is not presenting a testable theory. The fact that all life is carbon-based does not a mystical message from the realm of spirituality make.

I would love to discuss this with you. I don’t want to attack you. I just wish to explain to you that you have misinterpreted some things, and I want to understand why you believe something that appears to me to be based on faulty logic.

Yours,
A Voice of Reason

P.S. Just so you know, dear Monsieur or Madame Wolf, the FSM is not supposed to be a real religion. It’s a joke. It seems to me that getting so upset at a little poking-fun is not the hallmark of a reasonable, confident position. I think that it’s much more becoming to stay calm and keep one’s sense of humor, don’t you?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Fable

Fable — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:07:09 +0000

You spelt reliable wrong, hun.
Ramen!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Rcat

Rcat — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:32:10 +0000

Fattima? relyable? Are evengelicals really ALL such bad spellers? Don’t they know that if God created man, and man created the dictionary, they can use it? There’s also spellcheck.

RAmen

Like or Dislike: 0 0