I used your exact words except only for cannot instead of can / this not her. Now you might do well to ask yourself, how could that possibly be either knee jerk or nuts to anyone other than a knee jerking nutter. Many an exploiter of religious bullshit like Sara Palin and plain lunatics like yourself demonstrate exactly the same thing - the use of argument which they wrongly assume they are somehow magically immune from. Well as can be easily noted you are not immune, and your own foolish argument bites you right back. How come your own words seem illogical to you when I use them, but not so when you do? Clue : you are delusional. Here try it once more: what facts do you have which refute this statement: He cannot create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt. YOU own that ridiculous argument dimwit. Not I.
Very true. To each his own I suppose. I just get angry when I picture a middle aged man (preacher) who makes his living by asking for donations from little old ladies on fixed income, who happily oblige in order to avoid a place called hell.
why don't you prove god exists rather.. disproving "stu" is logical try THAT on for size ps "faith" is not substantive proof
Absolutely untrue number two Who ever said science could not prove the existence of God was full of shit. As of yet science has not, and I certainly can't say that it will or will not.
This is a response of rational being. He sees the statement as a cop out or at the very least a non argument - perhaps even a concession to the fact the "Creationist" adjusted her argument - perhaps in deference to the probability that evolution may be a solid theory. -- Asswipe athiests - behave like Stu. Dopey atheists say science proves there is no God. --- Look I have no reason to prove there is a God in this argument or to an ignorant atheist- Unlike the dopey atheists I do not make statements which can not be proved. I understand that faith in God is based on belief and other concepts which may not arise to scientific proof. Asswipe atheists do not seem to understand the difference between faith and fact. How many times do I have to explain you can not prove the universe was not created. And I can not prove (nor am I trying to prove) my faith is scientific fact. What I can say is your atheism is ignorant because you can not prove there is no God. Non believers would be agnostic. Agnostic is quite rational. Atheism is delusional.
It's not *may be* jem, it's *is*. .....and yet you made this statement which "can not be proved."..... Did you lie intentionally or is it that you just don't have the capacity to understand? Now the default to name calling, for being stuck in your own mess of outright hypocricy and self-patronising deceit must be very frustrating. Sad you don't even realize . How very God like of you. What I can say is your theism is ignorant because you can not prove there is a God. Both those are equally valid according to your own line of reasoning. They represent your argument. It is your own ignorant, and pointless argument. .......and as for your agnostics...... simply theism, with a larger than usual indecision complex. It isn't *may not* jem, it's *don't*.
Um, no. The evidence from DNA, as well as from the fossil evidence, points to the shared lineage of humans and other primates, in particular, chimpanzees. If you don't know the science, then please do not participate. Work on eliminating your ignorance first.
jem, you silly deluded dope. its simple. faith is an emotion. fact is based on the concept of evidence. absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence.