No, rabbits have vaginas like any other self-respecting placental. Unless the Easter Bunny is a monotreme (convergent evolution?), in which case she would indeed lay her eggs through a cloaca = combined pooping/baby-making part.

A giant bunny poops out chocolate eggs once a year to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But Aristotle, the father of logic, has no mythical, commemorative mammal. That’s a telling paradox, isn’t it?

LOL! I don’t think that’s chocolate the giant bunny is making!

Rabbits are mammals and they do not lay eggs. Newspapers in America are a joke nowadays, let alone college newspapers. People just read them for the comics.

Rhiannon’s response is eye-opening: I confess to thinking of “Peter Rabbit,” obviously a male figure. And that would pose a problem with the eggs, wouldn’t? As long as I’m suspending belief, I may as well suspend thought …

But if the Easter Bunny is female, she wouldn’t lay eggs through her pooping parts, would she? Or am I really ignorant of the female rabbit anatomy (a real possibility)?

Umm… to paraphrase Asimov, a scientific theory is not just something scientists made up after a heavy night of drinking – they’re based on and around facts and hard observational evidence.

Which largely proves that scientific method is incompatible with anything based on a biblical or scriptual faith – anything that gives people a way to discern facts from fiction tends to foul up things that rely heavily on people ignoring the whole tricky issue of “and how do we know that this is the irrefutable word of God then?”

However, just because such scriptual based rleigions are probably absolute bollocks, doesn’t make them not worth believing in. And to be fair, if they are all bollocks, then why spend so much time trying to prove stuff that any megachurch preacher worked out a long time ago? When you and your opponent are in agreement, why continue arguing?

The thing that twisty and berube and that other guy get wrong when they start going on about the flaseness of religion is that they try to prove it false according to their own standards – which is how the religions they’re attacking define “false”, argueing science with a theologian or theology with a scientist is like trying to teach patriotic self sacrifice to a cat – it ain’t gonna work.

The fact that the more noxious the religious person, the more staunchly athiest they are in their behaviors and beliefs proves taht the evangelical atheists (not to be confused with atheistic evangelicals that run the megachurchs) are getting their approach all wrong and are doing nothing more that preach to the already converted.

[/flippant classicist]

That’s not chocolate you’re eating.

Enjoy!

Ha! That’s why I liked that particular excerpt, but then again, I fully admit to having a six-year-old’s sense of humor.

Now, whether a rabbit would have to “poop” an egg to lay it, I have no idea, and I would prefer not to think about it, really.

That’s not chocolate you’re eating.

Enjoy!

I honestly think that the Scientific Method is incompatible with religious explanations. Both science and religion offer competing explanations and answers to questions like “what is the meaning of life?”, “how were we created?” and “how should we explain certain phenomena?” There is no grounds to suddenly start using religious explanations if you’re a scientist.

I think the big question here is about all the things that science does not currently have a (complete) explanation for. Science is good at noting that science itself is incomplete; lots of theories, even more hypotheses, very few facts, if any. As I understand it, a lot of scientists are religious in part because of this fact–there is room for mystery in science, between the cracks and at the outer edges and in the big huge questions that we are a long way from understanding. Where there is room for mystery, there is room for religious, or spiritual, or mystical explanations, and they’ll grow there. That’s not even necessarily unscientific, because isn’t some hypothesis, however difficult to test, better than none at all?

A fundamental question here, I think, is whether you believe that science could eventually answer every single question and fully explain how everything in the universe works. Of course, this belief can’t be proven right or wrong either… if you believe this, it’s a matter of faith. A lot of scientists call this kind of belief, and other unprovable beliefs in science and the scientific method as an article of faith, “scientism” as opposed to “science.” Michael Shermer is a big advocate… a lot of other scientists feel that this makes for bad science. At least in my family.

Henchman 24: Come on! They have one female servicing a large group of males. That implies a species that lays eggs.

Henchman 21: Oh my God, you’re crazy! They’re so obviously mammals!

Henchman 24: Please! She’d be in estrus 24/7 if she didn’t lay eggs.

Henchman 21: Smurfs don’t lay eggs! I won’t tell you this again! Papa Smurf has a fucking beard! They’re mammals!