Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

Superfreak said:
Except I did clarify, you simply ignored because you don't know what words mean. You call dictionary definitions: 'sloppy'
Click to expand...

Nope, still waiting on why disbelief or the lack of belief that something is true, is not absence of belief. You failed. Then you switched dictionaries when your first choice did not define agnostic the way you wanted. And it's all semantics anyway. Like I said, I am bored with stomping you, coward.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Nope, still waiting on why disbelief or the lack of belief that something is true, is not absence of belief. You failed. Then you switched dictionaries when your first choice did not define agnostic the way you wanted. And it's all semantics anyway. Like I said, I am bored with stomping you, coward.
Click to expand...

1) Again, nope... both definitions were provided to you. You chose to ignore them and call them sloppy.
2) You are the coward... still have not backed up your attack on me... can't find anything that I disagree with science on?
 
dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun
noun: disbelief
1.
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

Like String, disbelieving in the definition of disbelief. He seems to think the above is 'sloppy'

The ABSENCE of belief is when you neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE... I know this is hard for String... but what do disbelieve and believe have in common? BELIEF
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Source? So?
Click to expand...

Source was provided by YOU. Also, YOU have been hammering people for saying humans were not considered apes, yet it is only recently that biologists have been lumping them together. You were playing a game of gotcha. Which is quite sad. Kind of like you making accusations and then running away from backing them up.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You have that link yet, liar?

SF did nothing but make an ass of himself. Neither one you can name a prominent atheist that certainty on the existence of a deity. You just answer with cowardly copouts.
Click to expand...

'Cowardly copouts'... translated that means 'they provided me with actual definitions I chose to ignore because it proves I am an idiot'
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hominidae. Please try to read more carefully.

"The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees."
Click to expand...
however you want to restrict it, humans are not in the category "greater apes"......chimps, gorillas and orangutangs are......
 
We are absolutely primates. It isn't hard to see the similarities. Of course we are one of the Great Apes... The only question to ask is, "What took them so long to realize this?"

All hominid species are extinct except Homo Sapiens...

Hominidae is above hominids on the chart and includes all the great apes:

Chimpanzees
Humans
Gorillas
Orangutans...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
atheist.....there is no god
agnostic.....I don't know if there is a god....



there are no prominent atheists.....they are all ignorable idiots......
Click to expand...

Again, it is astonishingly arrogant to claim that people of good faith and integrity don't come up with their conclusions honestly. And I think Richard Dawkins knows a wee bit more about biology than you do...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
however you want to restrict it, humans are not in the category "greater apes"......chimps, gorillas and orangutangs are......
Click to expand...

You really are wrong in this case.

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

Reference 1, Groves, C. P. (2005). Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M, eds. Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 181–184. OCLC 62265494. ISBN 0-801-88221-4.

This isn't just wiki we're looking at here. Humans are in with the other three hominidae.
 
1966stang said:
Again, it is astonishingly arrogant to claim that people of good faith and integrity don't come up with their conclusions honestly. And I think Richard Dawkins knows a wee bit more about biology than you do...
Click to expand...

actually, I expect he believes far more that isn't true than that which is......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Eddie?

But seriously it doesn't have a name cause no one knows what that common ancester was. You're talking like about a bajillion years ago and there were no reliable witnesses. However, the phylogenetic evidence, the genetic evidence and the physical/fossil evidence strongly supports such a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top