b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Creationism » Message 7291008

[challenge entry]

From the Creationism challenge. See all 279 entries (closed)

(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:32, archived)
# anyone can be a scientist
but it takes a true nutjob to be religious
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:34, archived)
# are you calling the pope a nutjob?

weeeell, I'm going to bed now. G'night b3ta!
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:34, archived)
# yes
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:35, archived)
# alright then
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:35, archived)
# who wouldn't?
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:38, archived)
# and a complete mentalist to pretend to actually be a god.
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:35, archived)
# shut it mortal!
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:39, archived)
# *readies smiting hammer*
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:40, archived)
# Some sort of knowledge of
scientific method is often thought to be a pre-requisite for being a scientist.
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:35, archived)
# nonsense!
all you need:
1 white coat
1 test tube
1 gilson
some sheets of graph paper and a pencil
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:41, archived)
# Scientist?
I'm a scientist. What is a gilson?
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:58, archived)
# a type of automated pipette I think
(I'm actually a computer based scientist! :)
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 23:14, archived)
# Sadly not
automated...entirely thumb work

/biochemist
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 23:18, archived)
# nay!
Log-log paper is required for true science.
If it's graph paper you're just pretending.
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 23:01, archived)
# mmmmmm...
...Gilson
(, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 10:10, archived)
# He is a proper scientist.
He's just a poor philosopher.
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:39, archived)
# To be fair
He's pretty poor at both! Just slightly better at science.
(, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 21:04, archived)
# haven't read that book yet
should probably read his one about god first

edit: just in case someone thought i was talking bollox
(, Wed 13 Jun 2007, 22:51, archived)