Quote from CaptainObvious:
My only argument is, and always has been, you can't dismiss the argument of creation as silly and then come up with something such as multi-universes as an alternative without the pot meeting the kettle. One is as far fetched as the other, and putting a complex math equation behind a theory doesn't make it any more believable, especially when you consider just how many assumptions are in those equations. Lot's and lot's of holes yet to be filled.
You made two loaded presuppositions leaving any reasoning for them therefore based on fallacy.Quote from Index piker:
What presupposition would that be?
Quote from RangeBar:
Multi-universes is not a theory: it is bordorline science. A hypothensis. Evolution is a theory supported by volumes of evidence and rather than being bordorline science it is the foundation of all biology.
Evolution is not a controversial subject except in the minds of those who have absolutely zero or very little understanding of the subject. It is not sustained by complex math equations either.

Quote from killthesunshine:
Someone is having a bad day![]()
You're right, got off to a bad start this morning in my f'n job, in this f'n economy, with the f'n nitwit customers and the f'n a-hole, cry baby mo-fo employees, and then I read some shit about something I never wrote. One good thing did come out of my rant response. I have invented a new theory of creation called the "bing bang" theory. Has a nice ring to it, eh?:eek:Quote from CaptainObvious:
You're right, got off to a bad start this morning in my f'n job, in this f'n economy, with the f'n nitwit customers and the f'n a-hole, cry baby mo-fo employees, and then I read some shit about something I never wrote. One good thing did come out of my rant response. I have invented a new theory of creation called the "bing bang" theory. Has a nice ring to it, eh?:eek:
