Don't read Scientific American

[ginsengavenger]

good god you aren't kidding.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/ ... 5170.shtml

this was of course predicted by The Onion but bear in mind THE ONION IS A JOKE NEWSPAPER.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

[Pericolos0]

[Section_Ei8ht]

The watch-maker analogy (quite similar to what these guys are claiming) is a good one for trying to persuade the idea of a creator, but that in no way makes the Bible history.

[DD]

I think the original post may have been, more than likely, an april fools joke.

I was pretty pissed off by the tone of the magazine last time I read it, many of the articles taking an accusatory tone towards scientists for not solving their life problems fast enough, many of the articles debunking scientific arguments by saying they're "better off just having faith." There was an article on creationism and ID, arguing to support it, or that it would not be fair to "scientifically" reject it, while not understanding science I guess.

Lewdly? I thought I used "lude" incorrectly, but I didn't care to enough to find the correct word. Thanks for being patronizing and pointing it out.

Anyways, take a look at the magazine next chance you get, if you're smart enough you will understand.

[ginsengavenger]

take a breather dude

I'm playing Stubbs The Zombie. It is a fun and comical game.