Sayonara

That might have something to do with this not being the appropriate thread.

Please make the effort to (a) cite properly and (b) use VB tags.

People who talk gibberish go to hell.

People just don't put the same effort into joke posts that they used to. This one was shite.

You know what I mean though, which is the important bit

The point I am trying to make here is that seeing is not believing.

Mr Legs haunted a house I used to live in. He used to walk around in my housemate Becky's boots all day, clomp clomp clomp. Eventually she got sick of it and tried to bang his heads together, but she just got ectoplasm all over herself.

I can't prove it, but this one is actually real:

Just to speed things up really. There are any number of creationism vs. evolution threads to chose from if you want a fight.

I disagree. PIES and CAKES are the epidemic; obesity is a symptom of it. Not quite what you were after, I know, but I feel it's an important point.

Don't be a muppet.

That's not in the slightest bit true. By administrative decree, this thread is solely for bitching about how creationists are insane freaks with all the intellectual capacity of a doorknob (between them), and categorically not for debating creationism vs. evolution. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I think that was my fault. I read "Humanistic blah blah" yet replied with the word "humanism".

By "Darwinian evolution", are you talking about the process of natural selection, or something you just made up and haven't defined in your post?

I think MrL uncovered the true purpose of this thread.

I am not "dismissing the bible as false" - I am pointing out what it actually says and accusing you of selectively ignoring parts that contradict your claims (and by "you" I mean the pro "Behemoth is a dinosaur" camp in this thread, not just you as an individual). About what? If you mean about Leviathan being a metaphor, then yes. If you mean about how amazed I am, then also yes. Do you seriously think those articles HELP? The first one removes reason from the equation. Archimedes would be apoplectic. The second one tries to shore up the biblical flood's lack of evidence by adding a major new event for which there is no evidence. There is actually a net drop in evidence. The third one is perfectly reasonable except for the fact that the biblical flood has been tacked on, and is not required for an explanation as to how relics from an ancient town are under water.

John ****ing Titor is now on the "close new threads on sight" list.

OH MY GOD! Pictures of a THING that's THERE! why not? It must be a tImE MaCHiNe!!!! This thread is over.

Welcome back bitch.

That's the real reason they call him Dense Brucey.

So you are going to test your assumption by assuming it's true?

I already covered this in a manner so subtle that it's utter crushingness may have been missed:

ROFL omg