Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Originally posted by RJHinds
I bet I have faced more reality that you have, Buddy.

Given the nonsense dreamland you appear to live in I would say not.


You are so afraid of the truth, and that your beliefs can't stand up to it, that you can't even
acknowledge the position of the people who disagree with you.

You cower in the corner and pretend that their position is something different that you can
shoot down, too afraid to actually confront their actual arguments in case they dented your
oh so precious delusions.

You sir are a coward.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given the nonsense dreamland you appear to live in I would say not.


You are so afraid of the truth, and that your beliefs can't stand up to it, that you can't even
acknowledge the position of the people who disagree with you.

You cower in the corner and pretend that their position is something different that you can
shoot down, too afraid to ...[text shortened]... actual arguments in case they dented your
oh so precious delusions.

You sir are a coward.

I will pray for you. You need it. Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I will pray for you. You need it. Praise the Lord!

Still a pointless waste of time and effort.

And a wonderful example of the theists passive aggressive up yours...
"I will pray for you"... like stink you will.

You mean "I think you are going to hell and will deserve to spend an eternity being tortured
but I am going to pretend to pray for you so i can be smug and sanctimonious about it".

And it is yet another diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with the truth you are so afraid of.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Still a pointless waste of time and effort.

And a wonderful example of the theists passive aggressive up yours...
"I will pray for you"... like stink you will.

You mean "I think you are going to hell and will deserve to spend an eternity being tortured
but I am going to pretend to pray for you so i can be smug and sanctimonious about it".

And it is yet another diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with the truth you are so afraid of.

I have already done it. But I did not put much emotion in it in your case.

P.S. I'll leave that to somebody that might give a rat's ass.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already done it. But I did not put much emotion in it in your case.

P.S. I'll leave that to somebody that might give a rat's ass.

Exactly Googlefudge's point.

Now can you point out a problem with the actual theory of evolution or are you going to build another straw man?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Exactly Googlefudge's point.

Now can you point out a problem with the actual theory of evolution or are you going to build another straw man?

--- Penguin.

The problem with evolution is that it does not work. There is only speculation
that one creature evolves into another creature. But it does not work in real life.

P.S. Do you have verifiable evidence that an ape was in your ancestry?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The problem with evolution is that it does not work. There is only speculation
that one creature evolves into another creature. But it does not work in real life.

No as I have told you many times (and pointed you to the papers) there is ample evidence
and observation of evolution actually happening.

You just put your fingers in your ears and sing la la la every time someone points this out to
you because as I say you are a coward who can't face reality.

Originally posted by RJHinds
P.S. Do you have verifiable evidence that an ape was in your ancestry?

YES! (and again, we are apes)

Genetics,
Morphology,
Fossil record,
ect ect...

Originally posted by googlefudge
YES! (and again, we are apes)

Genetics,
Morphology,
Fossil record,
ect ect...

I haven't found one in my Family Tree because I am human.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I haven't found one in my Family Tree because I am human.

You are a human.
Humans are great apes.
Great apes are a subset of apes.
Apes are a subset of monkey.
They are all primates.
They are all mammals.
They are all vertebrates.

You are all of these things.

And if you went far enough back in your family tree you will eventually arrive at the fish that first
left the water and walked on land.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are a human.
Humans are great apes.
Great apes are a subset of apes.
Apes are a subset of monkey.
They are all primates.
They are all mammals.
They are all vertebrates.

You are all of these things.

And if you went far enough back in your family tree you will eventually arrive at the fish that first
left the water and walked on land.

Fish left the water and walked on land?
No way!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Fish left the water and walked on land?
No way!

Fallacy of incredulity.

The fact that you find this to be incredible is not an argument that it isn't true.


There is frankly conclusive evidence that all land animals and birds (rather than insects)
are descended from fish that evolved to walk on land.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Fallacy of incredulity.

The fact that you find this to be incredible is not an argument that it isn't true.


There is frankly conclusive evidence that all land animals and birds (rather than insects)
are descended from fish that evolved to walk on land.

No there isn't. That is stupid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are talking apples and oranges. A baby grows up to be a man or woman
over time. A puppy grows up to be a dog and a kitten grows up to be a cat.
But a puppy never grows so that over time it becomes a cat or a cow, even
though we may call a young calf a dogie.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2cFji4CmHE

Stupid. Don't you understand what its meant by “analogy”?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are trying to redefine evolution as some kind of glorified adaptation with
the addition of mutations. You have not included the idea that evolution
is supposed to go back to one common ancestor that has changed into all
the different forms of life on the Earth. This is the real definition of evolution
and it has never happened and it never will.

You have not included the idea that evolution
is supposed to go back to one common ancestor that has changed into all
the different forms of life on the Earth. This is the real definition of evolution (my emphasis)

No it isn't. The fact that we have evidence that all life shares a common ancestor and must have evolved from that ancestor does not change the fact that the definition of evolution does NOT include the assertion that all life shares a common ancestor. Hypothetically, if life did not all share the same common ancestor, there would be no logical contradiction between that and lifeforms evolving into new species. You demonstrate your complete ignorance and illogic yet again.