Not that long apparently…
rapidnewswire.com/6306-growteeth-1620.htm
Although… at this time the media can’t locate god in order to interview him on his great discovery…
P.S. I’m starting a sarcasm and “lets make fun of” religion period because i’m sick of arguing with you people.
better do it in the appropriate section 
don’t fool yourself; Natural Sciences are tied to religion !!! just read the posts here. 80% of them talk about the bible and god; where else would i post ?
For fuck’s sake Carpathian - you are the one who insists on making every issue into a war between science and religion. You are the one who turned my argument regarding anomalous phenomena into one about the Vatican and the existence or otherwise of miracles. You are the religious obsessive - you are just obsessed with not being religious and insisting on all religious people having to agree with you, otherwise you call them morons.
If you continue to behave like this then I’m going to request that you get banned because you are disrupting otherwise pleasant conversations and insulting people, such as passion, who are trying to have decent discussions based on evidence and reasoning and not just going ‘I’m so pissed off, I must be right’ like you insist on doing. This is not what ILP is for. Buck up your ideas or fuck off somewhere else.
Don’t get angry now… keep ur cool all i’m trying to say is that psudo-sciences and religion should NOT pe present in “Natural Sciences” forum… on this board… alrighty ?
No, you’ve disrupted thread after thread, been aggressive and insulting, proven that you don’t even understand the scientific method, started 8 threads when one would have done (thus messing up the appearance of the forum for others) and clearly have no desire for sincere discussion. Your aim is to troll and blame others for your own (repeatedly proven) ignorance. Like I say, continue along this path and I’m requesting a ban.
You clearly missunderstand me; and i didnt mess up the appearence of the forums because there was nothing to mess up… 70% of the topics weren’t even about Natural Sciences… they were PSEUDO-sciencies or about non-debatable issues such as creationism… or intelligent design.
No need for y’all to be so bitter, ya hear ? After all, any firm cosmic belief is naturally betrothed to a reasonable amount of arrogance and self-assurance, y’all know that. When y’all believe you’re in the possession of some pervasive universal truth about the universe, y’all know it’s your duty to stand up for it, with almost religious bigotism I might say, like it really were some universal truth.
Y’all know that ain’t the way to gow in our modern times. Whether it’s science, whether it’s religion, there’s more interpretation than fact, y’all know that.
I understand you perfectly, but you are mistaken. Look at the nature of the forum index, and then the titles of the threads in the various forums. Is every thread in the psychology forum strictly about mainstream psychological thought? Is every thread in the philosophy forum about established philosophy concepts and schools? Threads and posts will never be moderated on the grounds of ignorance or stupidity or because they do not discuss an established set of topics. As I’ve said before, if you do not want to argue with religious people, or people who don’t accept science as complete and irrefutable, then don’t. Start threads about other topics. The fact is that you are the one who drags religion into every discussion and then you blame others for it.
Actually not… i merely infiltrate already abundant disputes here between religion and science.
siatd, for one, has never argued against science from a religious viewpoint, as far as i remember, and i’ve had many lengthy debates with him
siatd has been arguing against science from a religious point of view ever since i started arguing against religion from a scientifical point of view… i’ve only just noticed that otherwise he doesn’t take sides. That comes as a shock to me you’d imagine… 
I have never, once, argued against science from a religious point of view. I’m not religious, I’m an agnostic fundamentalist.
lol… thats hilarious !!! so basicly what that says is:
I CAN SAY WITHOUT A DOUBT… i dont know 
; i’m certain about not knowing…
Fundamentalist agnostic → “i fundamentally KNOW that we cannot KNOW anything )”
Nope, I believe wholeheartedly that we cannot know anything fundamental. Hilarious? Perhaps, but I’m not the one claiming that I’m right, everyone is wrong, I’m a bastion of rationality, everyone else should have their children taken away and so on…
So you’re not sure… if 1+2=3 ? or if the earth gos around the sun ?
how are you absolutely certain that that sentence even makes sense to begin with? or how do you know with absolute certainty that numbers are in any way relevant, correct or meaningful concepts? or that these sentences are there on your screen and not just a figment of your imagination… or nothing at all?
i’m not certain that nothing can be known for certain… or that at some point, i won’t think differently… i don’t know this (though it seems the most reasonable conclusion to me)… but then i don’t know anything else for certain either, as i can, i think, always put a question mark behind everything, so far at least, and i’m convinced that it will remain that way.
i think that siatd feels more or less the same about this.
i try not to write ‘i think’ in every sentence, because it gets boring, but i also avoid absolutes.
edit: i think i should write ‘i might think’ or ‘i probably think’, but that’s very tiresome
to have knowledge… it is mandatory to have a starting point; something you know for certain. If you do now knowledge cannot exist… and we’re caught in an endless process of asking questions without giving answers.
And because we humans claim to have knowledge… something MUST be taken as 100% true even if it might not be… because anything can be imagined.
Again i reffer to Bertrand Russell’s “5 minute argument”; “there is no way to prove that the world isn’t just 5 minutes old and it was created as it is, “in motion” still we must not think like that”.
Aristotle spoke quite a bit on the matter.
An analytical matter - 1+2=3 because we use the symbols to mean that.
An empirical matter. The two cannot easily be married. Some would say that they cannot marry at all. Show me the existence of a unique singular entity, the signified for the signifier ‘1’. I don’t think that you’ve got a clue what you’re dealing with, because you are extremely ignorant about philosophy. Read Kant. Without Kant there’s no phenomenology, and without phenomenology there’s no logical basis for science whatsoever. But you won’t even understand what I mean by that…
Pretty much. Like I say, if we’re building a bridge I trust the engineer, but I don’t expect everything to go exactly to plan. It’s simply the most practical thing to do in such circumstances, it doesn’t give us any matters of necessity on which we can make predictions about, for example, whether it’ll still be engineers who we trust to build bridges in 1000 years time. That’s the exact sort of ‘matter of necessity’ that is the basis for much of the militant secularity to which I object. Of course, if science could destroy all other knowledge forms then it would by default (not by definition) be the only method for doing such things in the future. That would appear to be the aim of this type of secular philosopher. It’s bizarre to say the least - I blame 1950s B-movies.
edit - now I’ve really got to leave this exchange alone and listen Armando Ianucci’s Charm Offensive
well… perhaps, yes, maybe, i guess,…
but this doesn’t make siatd’s and mine agnostic stance any less valid, does it?
i think that the point is that:
neither of us claims this not by the definition you use, anyway