More reliable source?

Off Topic > Off Topic

<< < (104/108) > >>

Visage:

--- Quote from: Ronin on November 12, 2009, 12:36:14 AM ----snip-

--- End quote ---

The longer I stare at that the more blood flows if you know what I'm sayin.

Ronin:

--- Quote from: Visage on November 12, 2009, 12:37:19 AM ---The longer I stare at that the more blood flows if you know what I'm sayin.

--- End quote ---
it's coo

((but psst

use dat))

Muffinmix:
THE FORCE ARAAHHH

Rughugger:

--- Quote from: Muffinmix on November 12, 2009, 12:31:21 AM ---Satan invented electricity and windows OS, satan is the devil

Accepting ideas without rational consideration isn't scientific, it's just another way of being everyone's bitch. That is not Science.

And, no one understands the bible completely. It can't be proven by any means and is thus unreproducible and unexplainable. You cannot claim to understand that which cannot be explained. I can't blame anyone for being so reluctant about reading it, seeing as it would be all but useless as a grounds for argument as you can probably tell right now.

Wikipedia is a good site they have stephen hawkings making black holes with his voicemail computer thing also he's an astronaut now

--- End quote ---
I'm not saying I do. I have certain doubts about my faith that I've been able to cope with when I use science to help explain things I don't understand.

I don't blame them either, but as creditable or as lacking in credibility it is, it is still apparently a threat enough to some people to simply be left alone.

Wikepedia is an okay site, but it's been proven that any person can edit the thing without having any knowledge in what it is they're editing.

MtnDew:

I'd think bruce is more reliable.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version