/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4181871
I wouldn't have responded to your post at all had you not confused me with whoever it was that had a go at your ambiguity.

Sarcasm (when written) is a literary device... if you are unable to write with even a semblance of cohesion why should anyone assume you are able to employ sarcasm?

>and that everyone REALLY IS just a bunch of stupid apes

Again, this is an example of poor literacy, reinforcing the fact that you would probably be unable to use sarcasm correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Yeah... millions is an understatement.

How many people buy into homeopathy? MILLIONS.

How many people bought into cold fusion?
MILLIONS

Stating that a nobel prize winner would not be taken seriously is stupid.

I am drunk, just got back from a Xmas eve party and am winding down on the interbutts so i agree the ad hominem is unnecessary but i will do it anyway. Only came on /sci/ because i figured you people would recognise this bullshit for what it is.

So again...

>You fail at basic syntax/grammar
>You confuse OP with others who think you are an idiot.
>You honestly believe that only a few people believe in pseudoscience.
>You are a cockmunching retard.