15 Apr 13
Originally posted by woodypusherSo he wants to be a prophet now. Perhaps he has been reading the Holy Bible and is trying to one-up it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2307418/Professor-Stephen-Hawking-plea-space-exploration-claims-humans-survive-1-000-year-fragile-planet.html
15 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThere's a big difference in predicting the future based on evidence and fact compared to predicting it based on prophecy.
So he wants to be a prophet now. Perhaps he has been reading the Holy Bible and is trying to one-up it.
If you were intelligent you would understand that.
Of course the world will end someday. It doesn't take a holey bible to figure that out. Anyone can see that. Even you...I think.😉
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI suppose if Dawkins said the same thing, you would say he is full of shyte but when Hawkings says it, there must be truth therein? Sounds like you are a bit touchy on the subject of people skeptical of your religion.
Trust Hawking more the dawkings!
He is a smart man, we are headed for trouble, its like we are surfing hoping tech will keep pace with us .
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseHere is one example of Dawkins backtracking after being asked a question that he can not answer on the evolutionary process.
I suppose if Dawkins said the same thing, you would say he is full of shyte but when Hawkings says it, there must be truth therein? Sounds like you are a bit touchy on the subject of people skeptical of your religion.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI saw that before. That wasn't backtracking. That was pure anger. They were not supposed to delve into those subjects on that particular interview. He was duped into a trap. I would have been pisssed off too if I had been told beforehand we would talk about X and Y but not Z TODAY. But they jumped right in because they have no scruples.
Here is one example of Dawkins backtracking after being asked a question that he can not answer on the evolutionary process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThat seemed like a simple enough question for a so-called expert in evilution to answer. But instead of answering the question he admitted that apes are not our ancestors, even though he still insists they are our cousins without giving any proof.
I saw that before. That wasn't backtracking. That was pure anger. They were not supposed to delve into those subjects on that particular interview. He was duped into a trap. I would have been pisssed off too if I had been told beforehand we would talk about X and Y but not Z TODAY. But they jumped right in because they have no scruples.
18 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou got any proof, other than that rather tatty book you keep hawking about, that apes aren't our cousins?
That seemed like a simple enough question for a so-called expert in evilution to answer. But instead of answering the question he admitted that apes are not our ancestors, even though he still insists they are our cousins without giving any proof.
Thinking about it, some of my cousins are more akin to molluscs.
18 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat part of 'that wasn't to be in the interview' do you not understand? What part of he was duped do you not understand? BTW, instead of your continued plagiarizing the term Evilution, why don't you give your source, since I know full well you don't have the capacity for originality.
That seemed like a simple enough question for a so-called expert in evilution to answer. But instead of answering the question he admitted that apes are not our ancestors, even though he still insists they are our cousins without giving any proof.
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by KeplerYes. I have given you the proof before, but you do not want to hear it, so you stuff your head in some dark hole.
You got any proof, other than that rather tatty book you keep hawking about, that apes aren't our cousins?
Thinking about it, some of my cousins are more akin to molluscs.
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOkay. I got it from this video.
What part of 'that wasn't to be in the interview' do you not understand? What part of he was duped do you not understand? BTW, instead of your continued plagiarizing the term Evilution, why don't you give your source, since I know full well you don't have the capacity for originality.