Poll

Which is a more reliable source?

The Bible
35 (18.3%)
Science
140 (73.3%)
Bruce Campbell
16 (8.4%)

Total Members Voted: 191

Author Topic: More reliable source?  (Read 40268 times)

No, it's true.
Great, now you can give it a rest. Like Nietzsche said God is dead, but you're beating a philosophy to death.

neither do you, except, maybe, that National Geographic. I might have seen it some where. There, I proved it
No you actually proved nothing, and I was merely pointing out that there's a possibility the foundation of the religion wasn't bullstuffted. Or you can continue to think you bettered me in a bout of logic.

Oh and speaking of circular logic

I've argued with idiots like Molasses for a while. Instead of trying to be logical, they just ignore what you say and masturbate to the nearest priest. If, on the other hand, he does attempt a rebuttal with creationist nonsense, I will not cease to poke holes in his argument until he simply gives up. It's how I've been doing it for a while on this forum. :D

Rughugger is stubborn in his beliefs. He will not acknowledge that God is highly improbable, but there's nothing I can do as I have presented the facts and evidence. He's not as bad as a fundamentalist, so it doesn't bother me as much that he retains his beliefs despite my debating.

you're a tad dumber than I remember

I still want to know where all this damn evolution evidence is.

Actually they're pretty sure someone with that name did exist there at that time.
that doesn't attempt to prove jack stuff exists, let alone Jesus. By this "superior logic", I can say that I'm pretty sure that some one lived around 100 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. named Julius and you have to take that as the foundation of a statistic of local names, one more being Julius.
I still want to know where all this damn evolution evidence is.
I just told you, if you can't bother to read, then stfu

I still want to know where all this damn evolution evidence is.
Everywhere?

I still want to know where all this damn evolution evidence is.

It's called modern science. Perhaps you should look into it.


that doesn't attempt to prove jack stuff exists, let alone Jesus. By this "superior logic", I can say that I'm pretty sure that some one lived around 100 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. named Julius and you have to take that as the foundation of a statistic of local names, one more being Julius.
You realize "Julius" was a common Roman name, where was "Jesus" was not a commom Jewish name. You follow?


Thanks bro, thanks for your enlightening find in anthropology. Go on back to your coloring books.

Mwuhahaha!
Not another brown town grammar friend...

You realize "Julius" was a common Roman name, where was "Jesus" was not a commom Jewish name. You follow?


Thanks bro, thanks for your enlightening find in anthropology. Go on back to your coloring books.
Not another brown town grammar friend...

His real name was Yeshua and it was a tad popular.

I still want to know where all this damn evolution evidence is.

We have uncovered fossils of various animals leading in a pattern that seems evolutionary. This is just one form of proof. Just the logic behind the idea is overwhelming and I'm surprised nobody thought of it earlier.

What do you mean? Monkeys? Yeah I'm pretty sure they exist.

Yeah I've got no idea why I even came into this thread, this is just a richard waving contest.

You realize "Julius" was a common Roman name, where was "Jesus" was not a commom Jewish name. You follow?


Thanks bro, thanks for your enlightening find in anthropology. Go on back to your coloring books.
I C WAT U DID THAR!!!!!!! U SUJESTD I IZ CHILDISH WITH UR COLORIN BOOK REFRENS!
Yeah I've got no idea why I even came into this thread, this is just a richard waving contest.
and then the classic "this is childish, why did I come here" generic post. Always used to imply some sort of "maturity" when that person acted like a five year old. This is the internet. It's full of stuff throwing contests. Grow some balls and quietly leave
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 11:38:37 PM by Nightzet467 »