Blogs 4 Brownback

May 28, 2007

Even Intrepid Eighth Graders Can Outargue Darwin

Filed under: Democratic Idiocy,Faith,Science — Sisyphus @ 8:36 am

Wow. I just found this. It’s amazing how easy it is to prove Darwinists wrong– even a child can do it!

Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project “Creation Wins!!!,” says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.

“Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites,” Benson said. “However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts.”

I can’t wait to hear the atheists on this one. Beating up on an eighth-grader will be typical of their classy tactics to date. Then again, nobody likes to be outsmarted by a 13-year-old, especially not people with fancy degrees telling them they’re so much smarter than the rest of us.

But the fact remains: processes which science claims require aeons or millions of years take, at most, decades or centuries. We can make stalactites in hours with epsom salts, so why should it take a million billion kajillion years to form a cave? Ask Darwin and his followers, and you’ll receive either a stunned, total silence, or a vicious attack on your intelligence, your motives, and your religion. But the bottom line is, they’re wrong and they know it. They don’t like having it pointed out, because that endangers their meal ticket. Modern science is a boondoggle of epic proportions. Our salaries’ taxes go to paying for the salaries of those who fudge data, falsely claim to shoot objects into “space”, and fill our childrens’ heads with lies about how their grandparents fornicated with baboons.

Why anyone ever took these Marxists seriously is something we can debate ad nauseam. But it fills me with hope to see that the children are no longer falling for it. They can easily disprove it for themselves. They don’t need scientists to tell them the Bible is wrong, when they can figure out for themselves that the Bible is right, and science is wrong: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

111 Comments »

  1. “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.”

    Psalms 8:2

    Comment by DPS — May 28, 2007 @ 11:39 am | Reply

  2. Just so you don’t think I’m attacking the kid, I applaud the kid’s experiment as it is quite novel in my opinion. That said, this experiment is not representative of how stalactites form in caves.

    The amount of Epsom salt present in the water would effect the size of the stalactite. I suspect that the more solution you add, the larger the stalactite would form. I’m not a geologist, so I can’t tell you what the concentration of minerals in the water in caves is.

    Caves are not made out of paper-towels. Paper-towels absorb more water than rock does, which likely affects the amount of minerals (i.e. Epsom salts in this experiment) that are left behind to form the stalactite.

    Overall, this experiment shows how stalactites grow on paper towels from a solution of Epsom salts. It does not serve as an highly-accurate model of stalactite growth in caves.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

  3. This isn’t just wrong, it’s appallingly wrong. He’s wrong on the facts, wrong on the interpretations, wrong on the understanding of how science works. If we’re charitable and grant that a 14 year old has some reasonable excuse for ignorance, we can still indict his parents, his science teacher, and the judges at this fair on gross incompetence on multiple charges.

    * This experiment has nothing to do with biology.
    * Epsom salts are magnesium sulfate; stalactites are made of calcium carbonate.
    * Stalactite growth rates are estimated to be around 0.1-10 centimeters per thousand years. If we assume his ‘stalactite’ was 10 cm long and use the slowest growth rate, that’s 100 thousand years, not millions.
    * Even if he had demonstrated an accelerated rate of stalactite growth, stalactite length isn’t the method used to date the age of the earth.
    * To quote the unquestionable authority, Terry Pratchett: “And all those exclamation points? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.” Mister Benson comes perilously close to the underpants limit in his title.

    Comment by John LaCroix — May 28, 2007 @ 1:31 pm | Reply

  4. “Overall, this experiment shows how stalactites grow on paper towels from a solution of Epsom salts. It does not serve as an highly-accurate model of stalactite growth in caves.”

    That’s not the point, though. The point is that stalactites can form much more quickly than scientists say they do. The kid couldn’t get calcium carbonate and a cave to prove his point that it happens very quickly, so he used household items instead.

    If stalactites form more quickly than scientists say they do, then Creationism is a viable model. Geology is a fraud. I think this experiment proves that admirably.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

  5. “If we’re charitable and grant that a 14 year old has some reasonable excuse for ignorance, we can still indict his parents, his science teacher, and the judges at this fair on gross incompetence on multiple charges.”

    I predicted this sort of reaction.

    “This experiment has nothing to do with biology.”

    If geology is a crock, then evolution and biology are also flawed models.

    “Even if he had demonstrated an accelerated rate of stalactite growth, stalactite length isn’t the method used to date the age of the earth.”

    Why not? It’s every bit as viable as any other method.

    “To quote the unquestionable authority, Terry Pratchett: “And all those exclamation points? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.” Mister Benson comes perilously close to the underpants limit in his title.”

    He’s 13 years old.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 1:41 pm | Reply

  6. “The kid couldn’t get calcium carbonate and a cave to prove his point that it happens very quickly, so he used household items instead.”

    Let’s say I want to do an experiment to see how fast objects fall when dropped in a vacuum. I can’t find a vacuum, but I happen to have a large and high tank of water in my backyard. I decide to drop a fair-sized rock in the water and measure its rate of decent in the water. It falls slower than the rate it should fall at if it were in a vacuum! Outrageous, those scientists must be completely wrong!

    From this anecdote, I hope you can understand why you can’t simply substitute something and expect it to behave like the thing you are trying to study.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  7. Why is it impossible for creation and evolution to coexist? I believe that God created everything for whatever reason and that it continues to adapt and evolve to this very day.

    Comment by Brian — May 28, 2007 @ 1:55 pm | Reply

  8. You do realize that different elements have different properties, right? And that this child made tiny “stalactites” that were not stalactites, they were crystal formations. Yeah, you can grow tiny crystal formations in minutes. How does that disprove that 4 ton stalactites and stalagmites in caves take thousands of years?

    Comment by Colin C. — May 28, 2007 @ 2:00 pm | Reply

  9. This is getting out of hand. Sisyphus, you trying to argue against science would be like me trying to argue against religion!

    Comment by Colin C. — May 28, 2007 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

  10. “Let’s say I want to do an experiment to see how fast objects fall when dropped in a vacuum. I can’t find a vacuum, but I happen to have a large and high tank of water in my backyard. I decide to drop a fair-sized rock in the water and measure its rate of decent in the water. It falls slower than the rate it should fall at if it were in a vacuum! Outrageous, those scientists must be completely wrong!”

    You’d be right, too. Heavier objects DO fall faster.

    “Why is it impossible for creation and evolution to coexist? I believe that God created everything for whatever reason and that it continues to adapt and evolve to this very day.”

    This is impossible unless evolution happens within the space of 6,000 years.

    “You do realize that different elements have different properties, right? And that this child made tiny “stalactites” that were not stalactites, they were crystal formations. Yeah, you can grow tiny crystal formations in minutes. How does that disprove that 4 ton stalactites and stalagmites in caves take thousands of years?”

    Caves are made of crystals, too. Crystals and rocks are the same. As for “elements”, I don’t really know what you mean. It sounds suspiciously geologic to me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:09 pm | Reply

  11. “You’d be right, too. Heavier objects DO fall faster.”

    You seem to have missed the point. Let’s say I want to study the rate at which cannonballs fall through the air. Let’s say we decide to substitute honey for air and conduct the experiment and measure how fast the cannonball falls [through honey]. By your logic, we would get the same speeds of descent as if we had dropped the cannonball through the air.

    “Crystals and rocks are the same.”

    So rats and mice are the same thing too?

    “As for “elements”, I don’t really know what you mean.”

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:19 pm | Reply

  12. “This is getting out of hand. Sisyphus, you trying to argue against science would be like me trying to argue against religion!”

    I don’t even know what this means.

    “By your logic, we would get the same speeds of descent as if we had dropped the cannonball through the air.”

    I see. But since epsom salt is a crystal, just like rock, this analogy doesn’t necessarily seem to work to me.

    “So rats and mice are the same thing too?”

    Pretty much, yes. Terriers and Rottweilers.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  13. Wow, now we’re reducing this argument to absurdity. Do you seriously believe that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones? Because people disproved that, oh, i don’t know, 300 years ago? And rocks ARE NOT crystals. Do I seriously have to point this out? You’re talking as if the only thing necessary for something to be true is that you believe in it.

    “Pretty much, yes. Terriers and Rottweilers.” That’s rich. Different breeds of dog, eh?
    how about Humans and gorillas? I guess they’re just different breeds of primate, according to your logic.

    BTW, i’m waiting for your response to the article above this one, the one where Brownback got elected to Senate through dirty, under the table finance contributions. Please respond and discuss that one there, however, i wouldn’t want you to be wrong and switch the topic like you usually do.

    Comment by Colin C. — May 28, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

  14. “Because people disproved that, oh, i don’t know, 300 years ago?”

    People like your favorite charlatan, Galileo? Forgive me if I’m unimpressed.

    “how about Humans and gorillas? I guess they’re just different breeds of primate, according to your logic.”

    Gorillas and humans have nothing in common, other than we breathe air. Gorillas are mindless beasts; humans have souls.

    “BTW, i’m waiting for your response to the article above this one, the one where Brownback got elected to Senate through dirty, under the table finance contributions.”

    I haven’t bothered to read your article, because whatever lies and distortions it contains are irrelevant. Brownback won the election because God chose him to shepherd our people through this era of tribulations. So long as we submit to the will of God, America will remain the primary power in the affairs of men. Unless your article addresses those issues, I can’t say it’s very interesting to me. I’m sorry.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  15. “I see. But since epsom salt is a crystal, just like rock, this analogy doesn’t necessarily seem to work to me.”

    How about if we choose milk instead of water? Both honey and milk come from animals so they are basically the same thing.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:52 pm | Reply

  16. Um, it’s YOUR article, people have just commented on it. What kind of fool speaks and doesn’t listen to opposing views? Isn’t there a bible verse about blinding yourself so you can’t see the truth?

    And it’s not Galileo that proved objects fall at the same speed regardless of weight, I DID. I just dropped a bowling ball and a rock off the top of my apartment complex, and they hit the ground at the same time. I’m kind of pissed that I had to take the time to prove a fact that has been proved over and over again.

    Just because you dislike someone doesn’t make them a liar. I dislike you, but that shouldn’t turn me away from Christianity, should it? Although you do make a good case against Christianity, Sisyphus.

    Comment by Colin C. — May 28, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

  17. “People like your favorite charlatan, Galileo? Forgive me if I’m unimpressed.”

    You make it seem like one person proposes a theory and everyone then just accepts the theory as fact and never bothers to test the theory again.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:57 pm | Reply

  18. “How about if we choose milk instead of water? Both honey and milk come from animals so they are basically the same thing.”

    They come from different animals, though, cows and bees. Crystal is much more rocklike than cows are beelike. That’s my point.

    “Um, it’s YOUR article, people have just commented on it. What kind of fool speaks and doesn’t listen to opposing views? Isn’t there a bible verse about blinding yourself so you can’t see the truth?”

    I AM listening. Why are you being so rude about it?

    “And it’s not Galileo that proved objects fall at the same speed regardless of weight, I DID. I just dropped a bowling ball and a rock off the top of my apartment complex, and they hit the ground at the same time. I’m kind of pissed that I had to take the time to prove a fact that has been proved over and over again.”

    Those probably weigh about the same, then.

    “Just because you dislike someone doesn’t make them a liar. I dislike you, but that shouldn’t turn me away from Christianity, should it? Although you do make a good case against Christianity, Sisyphus.”

    I’m sorry you feel that way.

    “You make it seem like one person proposes a theory and everyone then just accepts the theory as fact and never bothers to test the theory again.”

    More often than not, that’s the case. How many Helioleftists have even tested the beliefs they’ve swallowed whole cloth? How many have even considered how their beliefs contradict the statements of the Lord? Intellectual laziness abounds. That’s another point I was trying to make.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  19. I have to go barbecue now. Please excuse me for being slow in response to you. I’ll be back in a few hours.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 3:05 pm | Reply

  20. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t accept that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight. Does it somehow contradict the Bible?

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 3:08 pm | Reply

  21. “More often than not, that’s the case.”

    In the case of comparing the rates of descents for objects of different weight, this is an easy experiment to conduct. I know that high-school science classes often demonstrate this experiment. All come to the same conclusion that weight is irrelevant.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 3:15 pm | Reply

  22. I was unaware Charles Darwin mentioned the formation of stalactites in Origin of the Species .

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — May 28, 2007 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

  23. “In the case of comparing the rates of descents for objects of different weight, this is an easy experiment to conduct.”

    I think the correct spelling is ‘dissent,’ and that’s what you’re doing against our Lord.

    Comment by S.T. Kelly — May 28, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  24. “Gorillas and humans have nothing in common, other than we breathe air.”

    And about, what, 97% of their genetic structure, hands, feet, apearance, intelligence (and yes, justbecause they don’t speak english doesn’t make them unintelligent), nurturing their young, playing, laughing, crying…
    That’s a lot of nothing to not have in common.

    So, by your logic Crystal=Rock. Therefore you could give your wife a ring with a granite setting as opposed to diamond and argue (successfully) that it doesn’t matter because they’re the same thing.
    And that diamonds are as fragile as shale, or as maleable as gold or lead, because we all know that metal is more rock-like than not.

    And one other thing I would like to understand. You said that people couldn’t prove Science, or that their proofs are false or skewed.

    “This is impossible unless evolution happens within the space of 6,000 years.”

    Prove to me, to us, that the earth is 6000 years old please. Because there is ample proof one way, and so far, only 1 book that says the opposite. On top of that, it’s only a certain interperetation of the book that says that.

    “Intellectual laziness abounds”

    Sorry, but this happens when you take only one source for your facts and don’t verify or check them.

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 28, 2007 @ 3:43 pm | Reply

  25. “I think the correct spelling is ‘dissent,’ and that’s what you’re doing against our Lord.”

    I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic about the spelling of descent.

    Descent: a movement downward
    Dissent: disagree; be of different opinions

    My use of descent was correct in the above sentence. I am dissenting with respect to your (plural) apparent disregard for the scientific processes.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  26. Oops, meant method, not processes in my previous post🙂

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 4:02 pm | Reply

  27. “You’re talking as if the only thing necessary for something to be true is that you believe in it.”

    I think you’re on to something there.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 28, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  28. Sisyphus, the only evidence you have that the earth was created 6000 years ago is that it was written in a book you choose to believe. Since you appear to believe in the experimental methods used by science, can you offer up a repeatable test with specific observable outcomes for which the only logical explanation is that the earth was created 6000 years ago?

    And don’t use the kid’s test, since even if you accept that the formation of stalactite shaped crystals has anything to do with the formation of stalactites in caves (which it doesn’t), it fails the ‘only logical explanation’. You cannot disprove one thing and use it as evidence that something else is also untrue.

    Comment by Mr Agnostic — May 28, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  29. I think you dimwitted liberals and heliofascists and vegans are just jealous that little Brian Benson is smarter than you. You secretly all wish that you had thought of his experiment, but since your brains are so addled with Darwinism and marijuana cigarettes and soy and recycling that it never even occurred to you.

    I’m just saying, it’s pretty pathetic to be envious of an 8th-grader. So let’s try to pull it together and have an adult conversation here, alright? I bet that clever young fellow Brian could do it; I hope you folks can, too.

    Comment by DPS — May 28, 2007 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  30. “And about, what, 97% of their genetic structure, hands, feet, apearance, intelligence (and yes, justbecause they don’t speak english doesn’t make them unintelligent), nurturing their young, playing, laughing, crying…
    That’s a lot of nothing to not have in common.”

    I’m not 100% sure that this DNA stuff is even real. I’ve never seen it, and most of the people who have are the same ones who believe in evolution. I’m inclined to believe in it, because some reliable people have spoken in favor of it; but I’m not 100% convinced yet that there’s this tiny stuff inside my body that tells me what to do.

    “Therefore you could give your wife a ring with a granite setting as opposed to diamond and argue (successfully) that it doesn’t matter because they’re the same thing.”

    My wife should be happy with what she gets. Wives should serve their husbands, not complain and fill their days with troubles.

    “Prove to me, to us, that the earth is 6000 years old please.”

    That’s the timeline provided in the Bible. I can think of no greater proof available than that.

    “On top of that, it’s only a certain interperetation of the book that says that.”

    True, but it’s the correct interpretation.

    “Since you appear to believe in the experimental methods used by science, can you offer up a repeatable test with specific observable outcomes for which the only logical explanation is that the earth was created 6000 years ago?”

    Well, to name one example: Epsom salts and paper towels would appear to prove that the Earth’s geology could be formed in mere decades or centuries, rather than zillions of years as science has asserted.

    “And don’t use the kid’s test, since even if you accept that the formation of stalactite shaped crystals has anything to do with the formation of stalactites in caves (which it doesn’t), it fails the ‘only logical explanation’. You cannot disprove one thing and use it as evidence that something else is also untrue.”

    Sorry. I should’ve read this paragraph first. Okay, evolution. I believe in small-scale short-term evolution. You can breed pigeons for a trait, or dogs for a trait, or fruit flies for a trait. What you can’t do with evolution is create a new species. God seems to prevent us from doing so. And we’ve got species that supposedly “evolve” very quickly, so if we’ve had 200 years to work on it why haven’t we made one of them evolve into a new species yet?

    Then there’s the whole idea that acquired characteristics don’t pass down from generation to generation. LaMarck gets credit for that, but the real credit belongs to God. Inherited sin is a concept fundamental to Christianity. If we don’t inherit sin (a sort of “acquired characteristic,” if you will), then we don’t go to Hell if we die as babies. But we have ample evidence from ecclesiastical writings and the Bible that this does occur. Therefore, to some extent acquired characteristics DO carry on from one generation to the next. Therefore LaMarck was, to some extent at least, correct, and your buddy Darwin was, to some extent at least, incorrect.

    I hope that’s okay. I’m a little tired right now. The barbecue is settling in my stomach.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 5:43 pm | Reply

  31. I did an experiment with paper towels dipped in soy milk and laced with my girlfriend’s crystal meth as I was out of epson salt due to a cronic bunyon problem but I digress. The short of it is that I was able to grow stalactites rather quickly but they turned gay.

    My motive for mentioning this little experiment is twofold:
    Firstly, obviously this confirms the young lads refutation of evolution.
    Secondly, does anyone want to take some gay stalactites off my hands?

    Comment by ec1009 — May 28, 2007 @ 7:33 pm | Reply

  32. Why is it that atheists claim it’s ridiculous to believe that God created the universe in six days, but they never even question incredible “facts” such as that a solid rock — or for that matter a person — is more than 99.99% empty space and composed of molecules that are in constant motion?

    Comment by Peter G — May 28, 2007 @ 9:12 pm | Reply

  33. “I think you dimwitted liberals and heliofascists and vegans are just jealous that little Brian Benson is smarter than you. You secretly all wish that you had thought of his experiment, but since your brains are so addled with Darwinism and marijuana cigarettes and soy and recycling that it never even occurred to you.”

    I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I’m not envious of the kid.

    You don’t want your religion or beliefs insulted yet you have no problem calling people dimwitted, facists, and vegans (I’m not entirely sure how that last one is insulting).

    I also don’t smoke (tobacco or marijuana) and never have. What’s so bad about soy? Briefly skimming the wikipedia article I see nothing that would indicate it is somehow bad or harmful. And what’s so bad about recycling? Are you saying that we should not recycle and instead just throw everything in landfills?

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 11:22 pm | Reply

  34. In the spirit of Brian Benson’s experiment I proposed a similar test to my daughter (she’s nine years old) to disprove the existence of a god.

    Here is what she came up with:

    God lives on a fluffy cloud in the sky.
    Clouds are made from water vapour.
    In order to replicate water vapour we boiled the kettle.
    Despite copious amounts of water vapour no-one floated around my kitchen.
    Therefore god does not exist.

    As she is only nine years old you’ll forgive her lack of experimental experience and poor methodology. It is of a similar standard to Brian Benson’s experiment above though so perhaps they can be taken as comparable.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 2:34 am | Reply

  35. “Secondly, does anyone want to take some gay stalactites off my hands?”

    No, thank you.

    “Why is it that atheists claim it’s ridiculous to believe that God created the universe in six days, but they never even question incredible “facts” such as that a solid rock — or for that matter a person — is more than 99.99% empty space and composed of molecules that are in constant motion?”

    That’s an excellent question. Let’s hear some answers, Jesus-deniers.

    “God lives on a fluffy cloud in the sky.
    Clouds are made from water vapour.
    In order to replicate water vapour we boiled the kettle.
    Despite copious amounts of water vapour no-one floated around my kitchen.
    Therefore god does not exist.”

    God lives everywhere, not just in clouds. He’s everywhere. A circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere, so to speak. I don’t think you can perform “science” experiments to test for God. If you try, you risk incurring His wrath. I’d keep my children out of that sort of thing if I were you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 5:15 am | Reply

  36. Hang on! Your bible states that god is a person or at least has the form of a person:
    Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
    God CAN be seen:
    “And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.” (Ex. 33:23)
    “And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.” (Ex. 33:11)
    “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen. 32:30)

    or are you supporting the opposing view;
    God CANNOT be seen:
    “No man hath seen God at any time.” (John 1:18)
    “And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.” (Ex. 33:20)
    “Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” (1 Tim. 6:16)

    So cloud seated person or omnipresent entity? Which is it?

    Also you’ve only commented that my daughter’s experiment is somehow inappropriate but not factually inaccurate. Are you now agreeing that there is no proof of god?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 5:24 am | Reply

  37. “So cloud seated person or omnipresent entity? Which is it?”

    Both, according to Scripture. Nor is this a contradiction, as you seem to imply.

    “Are you now agreeing that there is no proof of god?”

    There is no disproof, certainly. Nor is there proof, for those unwilling to listen. Those who wouldn’t hear the laws of Moses wouldn’t listen even if the dead rose from the grave.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 5:33 am | Reply

  38. So one the one hand you have a god that you have no proof for whatsoever and on the other you have hundreds of years of accumulated evidence from scientific observation and enquiry.

    mmm, which to believe? Science or dogma.

    My daughter’s experiment is just as valid as young Brian Benson’s is in that it examines physical evidence and draws unrelated conclusions from it. A mistake that any nine year old or even fourteen year old could be forgiven for. This is not something that teachers should encourage.

    However, let’s turn away from evidence as you are so very clearly going to ignore any and all evidence that does support your doctrine. Instead let’s use another method to prove or disprove the existence of god: Logic.

    So, what are your logical steps to prove the existence of god?

    Does it involve zombies? If so then this blog would go up one more notch on the hoverFrog Entertainment Rating System. TM

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 5:52 am | Reply

  39. Congratulations Mr. Sisyphus. You are the best parody of a fundamentalist Christian I have ever seen! Even the most ignorant creationist could not possibly believe crystals are the same as rocks. This blog should win some kind of award for satire.

    Comment by Matt J — May 29, 2007 @ 8:06 am | Reply

  40. Darwin was a fool as well as a liar. It makes me very happy to see that the children realize this. Too bad their parents aren’t smart enough to catch on. But that just goes to show how our public schools have declined in recent years. Teachers today care more about multiculturalism than they do about proper dress, proper respect for God, and proper learning about real subjects. I hope Brownback can change all that.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 8:29 am | Reply

  41. You seem to enjoy exposing your children to Hellfire, Hoverfrog. It makes me fear for their souls. Does child welfare let parents get away with this sort of thing nowadays?

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 8:30 am | Reply

  42. “Okay, evolution. I believe in small-scale short-term evolution.”

    That’s not in the bible, sinner.
    Come to think of it, computers weren’t in the bible either.

    Sinner.

    “And we’ve got species that supposedly “evolve” very quickly, so if we’ve had 200 years to work on it why haven’t we made one of them evolve into a new species yet?”

    How quickly? Surely more than six days…

    Comment by rob — May 29, 2007 @ 9:24 am | Reply

  43. “You seem to enjoy exposing your children to Hellfire, Hoverfrog. It makes me fear for their souls. Does child welfare let parents get away with this sort of thing nowadays?

    Comment by Marcia P”

    Marcia, I am unable to find a proper definition of Hellfire except as “a place of eternal fire envisaged as punishment for the damned” – Source: wordnet.princeton.edu I wonder if you could help me out with a better definition so that I know what you’re talking about.

    While you’re be so helpful I wonder if you could define a soul for me as well. I’ve only got that notoriously leftist wikipedia that states: “The soul according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance — spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) — particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being. ”

    As far as I can tell both words are just a made up term that religious people use and as such has no basis in fact.

    As you know child welfare is run by lefty liberal vegetarian Santa worshippers who care nothing for a child except for their physical and mental needs. Maybe it’s different in the god fearing part of the world where you are. Maybe not though as they clearly let parents impart the strangest ideas onto their children when really they should combat this with every fibre of their being.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  44. “You don’t want your religion or beliefs insulted yet you have no problem calling people dimwitted, facists, and vegans (I’m not entirely sure how that last one is insulting).”

    The Truth hurts. If you don’t want to be insulted, stop believing secularist lies.

    As for vegans, well, God gave us teeth designed to tear meat. If He wanted us to be vegans he would have made cows out of lettuce.

    Comment by Donatello — May 29, 2007 @ 9:54 am | Reply

  45. “Sinner.”

    That’s rich, coming from an atheist.

    Sorry, Hoverfrog. But I think Marcia’s on to something. Why doesn’t child welfare take the children away from parents who endanger their childrens’ souls? Hopefully, President Brownback will do something about this.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  46. Donatello, what kind of freak are you that has sharp teeth designed for tearing meat throughout your entire mouth. Obviously we’re a breed apart because I have flat teeth at the back of my mouth that enable me to chew food rather than just tear it and gulp it down. As an omnivore I evolved these dental characteristics. Actually Don (you don’t mind if I call you Don do you?) do you cook food? How about eat processed food or perhaps cheese? I’m pretty sure you don’t get cheese trees yet somehow these foods magically appear. I’m pretty sure tearing teeth weren’t designed for cheese consumption or even for eating cooked meat.

    Sisyphus, as souls don’t exist except in fairy tales and the bible they cannot be endangered. I put forward the hypothesis that supporters of Brownback who deny a child access to proven facts represent a much greater threat to children than an an unbeliever ever could.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 10:19 am | Reply

  47. “Sisyphus, as souls don’t exist except in fairy tales and the bible they cannot be endangered.”

    A Christian nation would be to differ with you, there.

    “I put forward the hypothesis that supporters of Brownback who deny a child access to proven facts represent a much greater threat to children than an an unbeliever ever could.”

    A Christian nation relies on the Bible for the upbringing of its youth.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 10:23 am | Reply

  48. God did make certain species of cow out of soy which I understand vegans have no problem eating. Many even go so far as to claim that soy is a vegetable. Is there no lie that these people will not stoop too? Haven’t they ever heard of a soy burger. Soy milk comes from the teet of a soy cow. Only mammels can produce milk. Are they denying the existence of soy milk? Vegans for some reason have no problem with eating these kinds of animal products thus proving they are the world’s greatest hypocrites!! Typical libereloveganazi propaganda. Meat is only o.K. if it serves their true purpose of promoting the gay agenda.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 10:26 am | Reply

  49. “As for vegans, well, God gave us teeth designed to tear meat. If He wanted us to be vegans he would have made cows out of lettuce.”

    By your logic, if God didn’t want us to sin he never would have given us free-will.

    Comment by Nobody — May 29, 2007 @ 10:26 am | Reply

  50. Don’t mock. I’ve heard of the fabled lettuce cow. It’s related to the mad cow and the silly cow. Sadly the soy cow is a new concept for me. Although I believe in the coconut cow because I’ve actually drunk coconut milk from one of their eggs.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  51. Notice how Liberaloveganazis place the word love in the middle of their title to make their true agenda seem more benign? Pretending to appropriat Our Lord and Savior’s message as their own. Is there no depth to which they will not stoop!!!!!

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  52. I have never heard of a lettuce cow. Is there really such a thing as a hoverfrog? Does it really hover? It is amazing all of the interesting creatures God put on this earth.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  53. “Congratulations Mr. Sisyphus. You are the best parody of a fundamentalist Christian I have ever seen!”

    Sisyphus, You must get pretty tired of people saying that. Pity you’re doing it to yourself.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 29, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  54. Oh, and I hate to give away the answer to a puzzle you find so fascinating, but PZ Meyers responded to the story several days ago with his aptly-named posting Another Christian Science Fair Embarrasses Itself.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 29, 2007 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  55. Soy is Satan’s crop. It makes children homosexual.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  56. No Marcia its satan’s cow. The opposite of a holy cow. Please try to keep up with the program you silly.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  57. I like this parody. These “Creationists” really do not understand the principles of any science at all. Are these people normal? Or is there some sort of large group of people with Down’s syndrome, a copy of the bible and internet access?
    Every christian I know in the UK is embarrassed by such people, and claim they aren’t actually being christian.
    I suppose it’s much like these “muslim terrorists” that the US government is so obsessed over. There aren’t that many differences.
    Isn’t there a saying that goes something like “To know your enemy, you must become him”?
    The USA seems to be taking that too literally.

    Comment by Adam — May 29, 2007 @ 2:10 pm | Reply

  58. Just for reference, I found this today by accident, and figured I would share it.

    http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20–%20science%20vs%20faith.html

    It seems to pretty much sum up this thread.

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

  59. “Soy is Satan’s crop. It makes children homosexual.”

    Do you have any evidence of this? Is it in the Bible somewhere?

    Comment by Nobody — May 29, 2007 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  60. Do you have any evidence of this? Is it in the Bible somewhere?”

    It was on WorldNetDaily, which is the most trustworthy non-Biblical source around.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  61. WorldNetDaily is trusted more than the bible in some circles and by some squares also.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

  62. True enough. I wouldn’t go that far, personally, but better WND than the New York Times or that other moonbat trash, like wikipedia and Google.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 6:48 pm | Reply

  63. […] Oh it’s personal! Even Intrepid Eighth Graders Can Outargue Darwin « Blogs 4 Brownback Even Intrepid Eighth Graders Can Outargue Darwin « Blogs 4 Brownback […]

    Pingback by Oh it's personal! Even Intrepid Eighth Graders Can Outargue Darwin « Blogs 4 Brownback « Sathfilms — May 29, 2007 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  64. “Caves are made of crystals, too. Crystals and rocks are the same.”

    I have a theory that Sisyphus’ brain is basically the same thing as a rock. Can anyone prove to me otherwise? have you actually seen his brain? ‘Ah’, you might say ‘but if his brain is a rock, then how could he think?’. Well I have seen little evidence of that, but if we assume that he can indeed think, maybe his thinking organ is located somewhere in his nether regions.

    I challenge anyone to prove to me beyond a doubt that this is not the case.

    Comment by Mr Agnostic — May 29, 2007 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  65. “My wife should be happy with what she gets. Wives should serve their husbands, not complain and fill their days with troubles.”

    This is the best spoof blog ever.I have been reading this agog for the last hour. You rule. As a brit who lived in the US for a couple of years I always disagreed with fellow brits who thought that you yanks did not do irony. But man this rocks you had me hook line and sinker up until the above. I wanted to believe that you thought that the sun went round the earth and man you came across good. You are so prolific as well this must take you hours. Well done this is a work of true genius.
    All the best Ric

    Comment by Ric Colasanti — May 29, 2007 @ 8:58 pm | Reply

  66. Oh sorry but could you also give me the derivation of moonbat I love it
    Ric

    Comment by Ric Colasanti — May 29, 2007 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  67. From Wikipedia:
    Moonbat is a political epithet coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of “The Libertarian Samizdata,” a libertarian weblog. It was originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian, but now the term enjoys great currency in the libertarian blogosphere as an all-purpose insult for modern liberals, peace protestors, and other ideological opponents. It is similar to the epithets Feminazi or Idiotarian.

    I’m sure you could make up your own though.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 30, 2007 @ 6:00 am | Reply

  68. What I don’t understand is why everybody is so worked up about this kid’s refutation of a theory. As we all know, evolution is simply a theory. Darwin (and his ilk) came up with this “theory” and the liberal elite in their ivy towers have been pushing on the impressionable youth of today.

    I know that this little boy (bless his sweet soul) has done the Lord’s work in exposing the lie has been forced down the throats of our children since the Scopes trials. Fortunately, President Brownback will be able to curb this atrocity and (hopefully) restore God into the public school system.

    Comment by DBATI — May 30, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  69. DRAWIN WAS RETARDED SO ARE PEOPLE WHO LIKE HIM BRIOWNABCK WILL HAVE YOUALL THROWN IN JAIL!

    IM VOTIGN FOR BROWNABCK FOR PRSIDNT!!! MY VOTE CANDELS OUTYOURS!!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 30, 2007 @ 11:30 am | Reply

  70. MY VOTE CANDLES OUTY OURS!!!

    vote candles! What a great idea Jack. Where can I get some and are they available in Innies as well as outies?

    Comment by ec1009 — May 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm | Reply

  71. “MY VOTE CANDLES OUTY OURS!!!”

    Vote candles! What a great idea Jack. Where can I get some and are they available in Innies as well as outies?

    Comment by ec1009 — May 30, 2007 @ 12:56 pm | Reply

  72. “VOTE CANDLES OUTY OURS!!!”

    We should shout this at all Brownback rallies. Whose with me on this?

    Comment by ec1009 — May 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm | Reply

  73. Sorry about the double post. I was just so excited about the Vote Candles that I hit the send button twice.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 30, 2007 @ 1:02 pm | Reply

  74. “Oh sorry but could you also give me the derivation of moonbat I love it
    Ric”

    Sure thing, moonbat.

    “I’m sure you could make up your own though.”

    If you like, I could start calling you “treefrog.” It’s almost as derogatory.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

  75. Sisyphus,
    Tell me – when you are ill, do you take medicine? When you cut yourself, do you disinfect the wound lest it become infected? I ask only as medicine is highly dependent on biology – your opinion of which is broadly, nay, painfully clear; “If geology is a crock, then evolution and biology are also flawed models.”.

    By your reasoning, this experiment renders all of medical science obsolescent and baseless. Silly me – I thought you went to the doctor’s to get better.

    Comment by Dialethia — May 30, 2007 @ 2:04 pm | Reply

  76. Common descent is demonstrable. Common descent is easily demonstrable. Common descent is easy to demonstrate. Common descent can be readily proved. Common descent can be understood by a child of ten. (but he’s not in at the moment) The evidence for Common descent is overwhelming. The existence of common descent is undeniable!

    Creationism is not demonstrable. Creationism can only be understood by the ignorant. The evidence for Creationism is non-existent. Creationism is bullshit!

    Comment by Skeptic — May 30, 2007 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  77. These debates are truly awesome.

    Comment by Coconuts — May 30, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  78. “Tell me – when you are ill, do you take medicine?”

    That’s a personal question, isn’t it?

    “By your reasoning, this experiment renders all of medical science obsolescent and baseless. Silly me – I thought you went to the doctor’s to get better.”

    I do. I don’t go to the doctor to become a guinea pig for their bizarre evolutionist medical experiments, though.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Reply

  79. The point I am making is that if biology was a crock, medicine would likely have an effect opposite to that desired.

    Comment by Dialethia — May 31, 2007 @ 2:35 pm | Reply

  80. “The point I am making is that if biology was a crock, medicine would likely have an effect opposite to that desired.”

    It usually does. When your time’s up, all the medecine in the world won’t keep you from dying.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  81. “You’d be right, too. Heavier objects DO fall faster.”

    In a vacuum, everything accelerates at 9.8 meters per second squared, be it a feather or a bowling ball. It’s air resistance that causes a feather to fall more slowly.

    This blog is satire, right?

    Comment by jonnieg — May 31, 2007 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  82. “In a vacuum, everything accelerates at 9.8 meters per second squared, be it a feather or a bowling ball. It’s air resistance that causes a feather to fall more slowly.”

    Nature abhors a vacuum, so these objects would expand to fill it, possibly even breaking apart into a dust in order to do so.

    “This blog is satire, right?”

    No.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  83. Nature abhors a vacuum, so these objects would expand to fill it, possibly even breaking apart into a dust in order to do so.

    You’re killing me here. This is so wrong that I’ve having a hard time typing this for laughter. Ever heard of a thing called a “vacuum tube”? A vacuum can be artificially created without destroying whatever its contained in. Moreover, outer space is primarily a vacuum, like it or not.

    But hey, you don’t have to trust me. I encourage you to take a spacewalk without any form of protective suit…

    Comment by Kalium — May 31, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  84. “But hey, you don’t have to trust me. I encourage you to take a spacewalk without any form of protective suit…”

    People can’t go into space, silly! Sisyphus said so, so it must be true.[/sarcasm]

    Comment by Marika — May 31, 2007 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  85. “Moreover, outer space is primarily a vacuum, like it or not.”

    Outer space is a myth, like the Loch Ness Monster, or evolution.

    “People can’t go into space, silly! Sisyphus said so, so it must be true.[/sarcasm]”

    Have YOU ever been there? If not, how would you know we can go? You really trust the moonbat US/ Communist Soviet/ Maoist Chinese governments to give you an honest answer on this?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 5:15 pm | Reply

  86. “Moreover, outer space is primarily a vacuum, like it or not.”

    Yeah right and black holes are just giant vacuum cleaners sucking up stars. Damn you’re stupid.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 31, 2007 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  87. “Have YOU ever been there? If not, how would you know we can go? You really trust the moonbat US/ Communist Soviet/ Maoist Chinese governments to give you an honest answer on this?”

    No, but I’m not going to blindly accept something YOU say, simply because you say so. Have you ever been to, or, I suppose, close to, this ether you say is there? If not, how do you know we can’t go? Do you really trust a book that’s been edited by countless politcal and religious figures throughout the ages to give you straight, unbiased facts? God may be infallable, but men are not, and men are the ones who have been publishing it since its initial writing slightly less than two millenia ago. Actually, probably longer, what with the Old Testament and all.

    Comment by Marika — May 31, 2007 @ 6:05 pm | Reply

  88. Outer space is a myth, like the Loch Ness Monster, or evolution.

    Or, apparently, an intelligent Brownback supporter, much less one who can deal with reality. I’d love to see how well you do without the benefits of the modern science you so clearly distrust.

    Yeah right and black holes are just giant vacuum cleaners sucking up stars.

    A black hole is a gravitational singularity which absorbs matter that crosses its event horizon and re-emits it in the form of gamma radiation.

    Not that I expect you to understand any of that.

    Comment by Kalium — May 31, 2007 @ 6:24 pm | Reply

  89. Now that I think of it, the Bible doesn’t say anything about an ether, and I remember a story about Elijah that pretty much reads as if he went to space, in fact: did you know that when the first Israeli astronaut went into space in 2003 (he died in the Columbia accident), the Israeli’s stated he wasn’t the first, they stated, based on the OT, that Elijah was the first Israeli astronaut! (If you don’t believe me, go look it up!)

    Comment by Skeptic — May 31, 2007 @ 6:27 pm | Reply

  90. “No, but I’m not going to blindly accept something YOU say, simply because you say so. Have you ever been to, or, I suppose, close to, this ether you say is there?”

    No.

    “If not, how do you know we can’t go?”

    Well, we certainly haven’t gone yet, which is my point.

    “Do you really trust a book that’s been edited by countless politcal and religious figures throughout the ages to give you straight, unbiased facts? God may be infallable, but men are not, and men are the ones who have been publishing it since its initial writing slightly less than two millenia ago.”

    The Bible is the Holy Word of God. Any man who’d edited it inappropriately would’ve been immediately smitten.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 6:33 pm | Reply

  91. “Why is it impossible for creation and evolution to coexist? I believe that God created everything for whatever reason and that it continues to adapt and evolve to this very day.”

    This is impossible unless evolution happens within the space of 6,000 years.”

    Ahh, yes. The classic creo dilemma, resolved by SuperCrevolution™.

    SuperCrevolution™ is the awesome radiative force that makes those scientists’ last 6 billion years look like they were standing still. In only 6000 years, SuperCrevolution™ has taken whatever could be loaded onto a primitive ship and kept alive for 40 days, and turned them into so many species that we still haven’t counted a fraction.

    Creationists don’t like evolution, but boy do they like SuperCrevolution™!

    Comment by Paradee — May 31, 2007 @ 8:22 pm | Reply

  92. “Well, we certainly haven’t gone yet, which is my point.”

    Even if we haven’t gone yet, that does not mean we can never go.

    “The Bible is the Holy Word of God. Any man who’d edited it inappropriately would’ve been immediately smitten.”

    Really? Because, unless he’s shifted to more subtle means of smiting people, or even for just generally interacting with his followers, he seems to have chosen to be “hands-off” with the handling of the human race. Don’t blame him, really. I’d be rather pissed off, too, if my only son was crucified and left to slowly die on the top of a hill for all to see, even if he told me that he forgave the people that did it. Especially after all those years of aiding the very people that stuck him up there.

    Comment by Marika — May 31, 2007 @ 9:18 pm | Reply

  93. Marika has an uncommon subtlety to her blasphemous lies. If she holds to what she believes, she’ll burn in H-E-L-L, but if she truly found Jesus and turned away from Satan, she could be a real asset to the Senator’s cause, and to America’s.

    Or you could ban her. Either way.

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 12:24 am | Reply

  94. “The evil love it in Hell – it was made for them.”
    -GB Shaw

    Comment by Paradee — June 1, 2007 @ 6:14 am | Reply

  95. “The Bible is the Holy Word of God. Any man who’d edited it inappropriately would’ve been immediately smitten.”

    Well – you don’t see any of them walking around, do you?

    Comment by Paradee — June 1, 2007 @ 8:15 am | Reply

  96. I’d just like to point out the extraordinary irony of a young-earth creationist Christian ranting under the name of a character from PAGAN GREEK MYTHOLOGY.

    Comment by Philo — June 1, 2007 @ 9:41 am | Reply

  97. Philo @ 96:

    The figure Sisyphus was a well-known enemy of the pagan gods.

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Reply

  98. “The figure Sisyphus was a well-known enemy of the pagan gods.”

    Exactly. I view him as an early Christian, of sorts. He certainly was no fan of heathen pantheons.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 5:08 pm | Reply

  99. I think the name Sisiphus is really matching you. Seeing that you still try to bring that rock on the top of the hill…

    Comment by PG — June 2, 2007 @ 2:13 pm | Reply

  100. “I think the name Sisiphus is really matching you. Seeing that you still try to bring that rock on the top of the hill…”

    Is the hill on the topside or the underside of the world disk?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 2, 2007 @ 2:27 pm | Reply

  101. I think Sis is spoofing us. Nobody smart enough to breathe can be that stupid.

    Comment by Paradee — June 3, 2007 @ 6:57 am | Reply

  102. That’s not the point, though. The point is that stalactites can form much more quickly than scientists say they do. The kid couldn’t get calcium carbonate and a cave to prove his point that it happens very quickly, so he used household items instead.
    >Calcium Carbonate is CHALK or TUMS. Of course it’s accessible.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 4, 2007 @ 3:43 pm | Reply

  103. Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 6:03 am | Reply

  104. “Is the hill on the topside or the underside of the world disk?”

    Underside. Why would Hell be on top?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 11:04 am | Reply

  105. Wow. This kid didn’t think of anything new. This is a simple chemistry experiment that has been around for a long time. He hasn’t proven anything wrong. Scientists already know about this experiment and it hasn’t posed a problem for geology or evolution at all. If anything this kid should get punished for plagiarism.

    “That’s not the point, though. The point is that stalactites can form much more quickly than scientists say they do.”

    Um, yeah, the only problem is that he didn’t make “stalactites”.
    Definition of Stalactites: a cylinder of calcium carbonate hanging from the roof of a limestone cave.

    He didn’t use limestone or calcium both of which define what stalactites are. Therefore the scientists are still right.

    Comment by Logic — August 11, 2007 @ 5:23 am | Reply

  106. To Sisyphus,

    I hope you know that heavier things do not fall faster in a vacuum! The only reason lighter things dont fall as fast as heavy thing is because of air resistance. Without the air resistance EVERTHING would fall at the exact same rate. This is basic physics. If you don’t understand this, you shouldn’t be debating anything.

    Peace,
    Your friendly neighborhood Humanist.

    Comment by Logic — August 11, 2007 @ 5:28 am | Reply

  107. Humanists and physicists are brothers in lies. Both serve the Prince of Lies. The fact of the matter is that air resistance, like Humanism, is never once mentioned in the Bible. That nullifies it completely for me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 11, 2007 @ 7:37 am | Reply

  108. Please forgive me Sisyphus by I laughed out loud at that last statement.

    Comment by hoverfrog — August 11, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  109. Sisyphus is “wetawded”!

    Comment by Logic — August 14, 2007 @ 3:36 am | Reply

  110. Are you sure you should be on the computer? It isn’t in the bible, so it must be evil!
    But seriously. It’s not that hard to mistranslate something, especially something long like the bible. In fact, a man found that the Holy Spirit wasn’t real.
    Republicanism isn’t in the bible. America isn’t in the bible. Brownback isn’t in the bible. So they must be EVIL! [/your logic]

    Comment by A Pissed Off Bob — December 7, 2007 @ 7:52 pm | Reply

  111. Hi, do you actually believe that a cosmic Jewish self-paternal zombie created this whole planet by sniffing some dirt 6000ish years ago so he could then save people (who symbolically eats his flesh and drinks his blood and telepathically accepts him as their master and tells him they love him) from the inherent evil which he created himself?

    Comment by Crocodile — November 5, 2010 @ 6:27 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: