Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

[Canceled.2014.2]

Do you hold the same position with regards to women? Only 55% of women believe in evolution. 65% of men.

not exactly a stellar showing for women there.

Not exactly a stellar showing for our species. We pretty much believe what we want to believe. Regardless of the evidence.

 

[Timshel]

1) I commented on the portion YOU posted... but his position is the same as yours... one in which he is actually agnostic, but wants to proclaim himself atheist. Words have meanings for a reason. The fact that you choose to ignore them is on you. But it doesn't change the meanings of those words.

2) Again you call me anti science... let me guess... you will once again run like a coward rather than back that accusation up with any evidence?

What say you coward? Going to back it up this time or are you going to run away again?

I have already backed it up. You call a position based on the best available science arrogant, have attacked me for challenging that and claim that semantics are more important than material facts or unequivocal statements. You only mildly disagreed with pmp's absolutist claim that evolution is impossible. You are anti science and/or too cowardly to stand up for the parts you supposedly accept. It is much more important for a chickenshit like you to defend your in-group. You prove it over and over and over again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not exactly a stellar showing for our species. We pretty much believe what we want to believe. Regardless of the evidence.

Unfortunately that is true.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have already backed it up. You call a position based on the best available science arrogant, have attacked me for challenging that and claim that semantics are more important than material facts or unequivocal statements. You only mildly disagreed with pmp's absolutist claim that evolution is impossible. You are anti science and/or too cowardly to stand up for the parts you supposedly accept. It is much more important for a chickenshit like you to defend your in-group. You prove it over and over and over again.

What position is that? The only thing I stated that was arrogant on this board are people who stamp their feet and proclaim there is or is not a god/all powerful being(s).

Tell me what science is it I am denying?

You are truly spinning now coward. But do continue, mocking your ignorance and cowardice is quite amusing. Dance little monkey.

 

[Phantasmal]

1) Abortion: ends a unique human life... Science is on my side
2) Evolution: Man evolved from apes... Science is on my side
3) AGW: The argument is not over with regards to mans effect on the climate, the fear mongers have exaggerated the effect of man with data that does not support them... science is on my side

So tell us String, you fucking pathetic coward... where is it that you claim I disagree with science?

2) Humans did not evolve from apes, but share a common ancestor, science is on my side on this one!

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

2) Humans did not evolve from apes, but share a common ancestor, science is on my side on this one!

Yes it is!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

2) Humans did not evolve from apes, but share a common ancestor, science is on my side on this one!

lol... ok... at some point we were the same and then branched into two separate ones... I won't argue whether or not the one common ancestor was called an ape or something preceding the two.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Oh yeah, it's all about you.....

Hey Ishmael I updated my signature for you.

 

[Timshel]

ROFLMAO... what material fact are you referring to moron?

But do go on with regards to words having evolving meanings... your spin should be quite amusing.

To call my specific definitions, the ones found in the dictionary: "jumbled" as you continue to ramble on with no basis in your argument... it pure comedy.

You continue with your absurdity...

But I know... you make up your own definitions of words...

You also are still running away from your accusations aren't you coward?

Can't help but notice you are trying to divert the topic of the thread yet again.

I am becoming quickly bored with this, coward.

The material facts here are the stated beliefs of myself and other atheists. They are far more germane than your sloppy definitions. You can keep your sloppy definitions, but they have no bearing on the facts. Most people who identify as atheists do not claim to be certain that a deity does not exist. They do not believe that a deity exists.

You still have not sufficiently explained the difference between disbelief and an absence of belief. But it's not going to matter anyway. Even if you were not so lousy at making a semantic argument it would still only be a semantic argument.

Did you change your source for the definition of agnostic? What is your source, because I am fairly certain you dropped some of the definitions. Pretty typical for a coward.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism noun

I was using the etymological roots, which if you are going to make a semantic argument is helpful.

Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
First Known Use: 1869

But we can see in the modern definition (bold), why I (Russell, Dawkins and many other atheists) see it as meaning, coward or non committal on God or a god. Either way you are very very very agnostic.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

Hey Ishmael I updated my signature for you.

Oh, ouch, you have really hurt me. You big neanie.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

I am becoming quickly bored with this, coward.

The material facts here are the stated beliefs of myself and other atheists. They are far more germane than your sloppy definitions. You can keep your sloppy definitions, but they have no bearing on the facts. Most people who identify as atheists do not claim to be certain that a deity does not exist. They do not believe that a deity exists.

You still have not sufficiently explained the difference between disbelief and an absence of belief. But it's not going to matter anyway. Even if you were not so lousy at making a semantic argument it would still only be a semantic argument.

Did you change your source for the definition of agnostic? What is your source, because I am fairly certain you dropped some of the definitions. Pretty typical for a coward.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism noun

I was using the etymological roots, which if you are going to make a semantic argument is helpful.

Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
First Known Use: 1869

But we can see in the modern definition (bold), why I (Russell, Dawkins and many other atheists) see it as meaning, coward or non committal on God or a god. Either way you are very very very agnostic.

Go piss on someone else's shoes, dumb faggot.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Oh, ouch, you have really hurt me. You big neanie.

Yeah not much can hurt a cockroach...it was a message. I'm sure you got it.

 

[Timshel]

lol... ok... at some point we were the same and then branched into two separate ones... I won't argue whether or not the one common ancestor was called an ape or something preceding the two.

Why not? It was an ape just as we, chimps, orangs, gorillas and gibbons are apes. There is no two. We are not that distinct. Chimps are closer to us than they are to other apes.

Yeah, maybe you need to freshen up on the one area where you, supposedly, support science.

 

[Timshel]

Go piss on someone else's shoes, dumb faggot.

Nobody is even talking to you. Tell us about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and hydroperoxyl again. lol

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am becoming quickly bored with this, coward.

Yet you are the one continually making ongoing accusations and then running away from backing them up. You then come back to make the same baseless accusations and the keep repeating your cowardice. I would say you are not bored, but rather are a glutton for punishment and embarrassment.

The material facts here are the stated beliefs of myself and other atheists.

ROFLMAO... your BELIEFS do not equate to FACT you moron.

They are far more germane than your sloppy definitions. You can keep your sloppy definitions, but they have no bearing on the facts. Most people who identify as atheists do not claim to be certain that a deity does not exist. They do not believe that a deity exists.

ROFLMAO... they are not MY definitions you moron, nor are they sloppy. They are precise definitions that come directly from the dictionary. Words have meanings you cowardly fool.

You still have not sufficiently explained the difference between disbelief and an absence of belief.

Actually, I have. Multiple times. But you are a coward who runs away each time and pretends that the words actual definitions don't have meaning.

Did you change your source for the definition of agnostic? What is your source, because I am fairly certain you dropped some of the definitions. Pretty typical for a coward.

nope... didn't change it... I used the dictionary's definition that pertained to our discussion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

So now you are using the 'sloppy definitions'??? LMAO...

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism noun

LMAO... the first clearly is agnostic as it relates to religion/God. The second definition as it pertains to other things. Hence, the TWO definitions.

I was using the etymological roots, which if you are going to make a semantic argument is helpful.

But we can see in the modern definition (bold), why I (Russell, Dawkins and many other atheists) see it as meaning, coward or non committal on God or a god. Either way you are very very very agnostic.

LMAO... that is no more modern than the first of the two you idiot. You think it is cowardly to refuse to take a position on a topic than can neither be proven nor disproven? That just proves what a fucking idiot you are.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why not? It was an ape just as we, chimps, orangs, gorillas and gibbons are apes. There is no two. We are not that distinct. Chimps are closer to us than they are to other apes.

Yeah, maybe you need to freshen up on the one area where you, supposedly, support science.

LMAO... so you think African Apes of today are the same as humans of today? You don't see any differences?

I am not an expert on evolution moron, but that does not mean I disagree with the science of it. you fucking moron.

As for brushing up... we most certainly did take a separate evolutionary path from Apes of today. That is why they are not human you moron. Saying we are are all part of the Great Ape family doesn't mean all are the same.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

Yeah not much can hurt a cockroach...it was a message. I'm sure you got it.

Ouch again. Please stop. Please. I promise to behave.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

Nobody is even talking to you. Tell us about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and hydroperoxyl again. lol

Tell us about "if you like your healthcare you can keep your healthcare".....you all want to talk about anything other than the vivid failure of your lying fraud president.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

Oh I get it.......all the black people came from apes. So when did the white apes come about?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh I get it.......all the black people came from apes. So when did the white apes come about?

We all can trace our ancestry back to Africa you moron.

Ever notice that the further humans get from the equator, the lighter their skin became over time? It takes many generations for the adaptation to occur when moving away from the equator... but it does occur. Which is why people in nordic countries are so fair skinned. It is in our nature to adapt to our surroundings. The further north you get, the less sun exposure you have, thus the whiter the skin became. The closer you get to the equator, the darker the skin. It is an adaptation to exposure to UV rays from the sun.