Dave Matthews
Rookie
At least according to Bush supporting blogger Mark Noonan!
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007726.html
Hilarious.
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007726.html
Hilarious.
What evidence has been compiled that supports it? The bible? Hardly a credible source for the truth. I agree that all possibilities should be looked at before concluding anything, but really, there's nothing to look at. Only stories describe it, no evidence.-FCM- said:I skimmed it. As ridiculously as she may put it, she has a point at the part where she says that scientists aren't really truly educated in religion, and, therefore, cannot describe the house if they've only been in one room so to speak. I refuse to listen to any scientist that completely denies the idea of Creationism without even giving it a chance.
TheNesMan said:What evidence has been compiled that supports it? The bible? Hardly a credible source for the truth. I agree that all possibilities should be looked at before concluding anything, but really, there's nothing to look at. Only stories describe it, no evidence.-FCM- said:I skimmed it. As ridiculously as she may put it, she has a point at the part where she says that scientists aren't really truly educated in religion, and, therefore, cannot describe the house if they've only been in one room so to speak. I refuse to listen to any scientist that completely denies the idea of Creationism without even giving it a chance.
intoTheRain said:TheNesMan said:What evidence has been compiled that supports it? The bible? Hardly a credible source for the truth. I agree that all possibilities should be looked at before concluding anything, but really, there's nothing to look at. Only stories describe it, no evidence.-FCM- said:I skimmed it. As ridiculously as she may put it, she has a point at the part where she says that scientists aren't really truly educated in religion, and, therefore, cannot describe the house if they've only been in one room so to speak. I refuse to listen to any scientist that completely denies the idea of Creationism without even giving it a chance.
Theres plenty of evidence to support happenings in the Bible.. we just never hear of it... and that's as far as I'll go, and I totally agree with -FCM-...
Paradox said:just out of curiosity, what is this evidence you speak of?
malakian said:Ahahaha, quality.
Also, I cannot believe IntoTheRain's last post. "I have evidence, but i'm not going to give it, just take my word for it". What if it went down that way in court? "I have evidence Dave_Matthews is a rapist. I'm not going to present it, but it's firm and conclusive. Take him away."
intoTheRain said:Paradox said:just out of curiosity, what is this evidence you speak of?
this is one subject I choose not to venture into.
intoTheRain said:ok, then i take it back, there is no evidence :lol:
continue on, wise ones
FireWall said:It's OK, we still love you.
Quinnykins said:What is wrong with the two co-existing?
Quinnykins said:Sometimes scientists can be incredibly wrong.
Quinnykins said:The Bible is studied in one of two ways. As a religious text purely for the education of Religion and as a historical text. Historians use it as a reference to events - and FireWall the scientific community do use the bible as far as using it as a reference is concerned. It's teachings maybe taken with a pinch of salt but it's contents and information inadvertantly given are used.
Quinnykins said:The bottom line is that when all faith in science has gone we still have faith in faith.
Quinnykins said:The Religion Vs. Science debate will keep going even if science can some how proove the non-existance of Captain God with the Big Beard/other deity of your choice hands down. It's like the Egg and Chicken debate or indeed the age old question: "How long is a piece of string?"