They're so blatantly over the top and use absolutely nothing that a person seriously arguing a point would argue.
Uh, have you ever listened to Creationists?
I got a little suspicious when they claimed there were "over 200 scientific studies" yet did not go on to imediately list even a handful of them.
Uh, have you ever listened to Creationists?
Also, do you honestly believe that a Christian hardcore enough to believe that heliocentrism was an atheist doctrine and repeatedly complain about the "pagan/Wiccan society" would name themselves Sisyphus after a character in one of those pagan myths?
#1: Yes. That kind of unthinking idiocy is not just common, but rampant. #2: He addresses that exact point and argues in the defense of the choice of name in one of the comments.
I'm not saying you're *wrong*. I'm saying that I can't see anything that makes the blog totally unbelievable as a serious supporter.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-20 08:02 pm (UTC)Uh, have you ever listened to Creationists?
I got a little suspicious when they claimed there were "over 200 scientific studies" yet did not go on to imediately list even a handful of them.
Uh, have you ever listened to Creationists?
Also, do you honestly believe that a Christian hardcore enough to believe that heliocentrism was an atheist doctrine and repeatedly complain about the "pagan/Wiccan society" would name themselves Sisyphus after a character in one of those pagan myths?
#1: Yes. That kind of unthinking idiocy is not just common, but rampant.
#2: He addresses that exact point and argues in the defense of the choice of name in one of the comments.
I'm not saying you're *wrong*. I'm saying that I can't see anything that makes the blog totally unbelievable as a serious supporter.