Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a 6% commission on everything you buy.

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#931 - redwolfradolf (07/09/2012) [-]
Ladies and Gentlefags
This is John Polkinghorne.
Theoretical physisist, AND Theologian.
He is a professor at Caimbridge (among others)
AND an anglican preist.

All arguments below and above, before this post and after are Completely, irrevocably invalid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
#959 to #931 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
And exactly what does his theories prove or disprove?
+1
#964 to #959 - redwolfradolf has deleted their comment [-]
#970 to #964 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
Who, whoa, get off your high horse now, me asking a question about your statement is not "pointless strife".
As you said, "All arguments below and above, before this post and after are Completely, irrevocably invalid. "
I ask you, how does his theories make all the arguments above and below completely invalid. You claim it, so you must be prepared to prove it, and do not tell me to do research on his theories online for 5 hours, since you claim it, you must be ready to back up your words.
+1
#975 to #970 - redwolfradolf has deleted their comment [-]
#977 to #975 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
Science and religion being opposites is not the issue here, you failing to prove your statement is. I did not say that science and religion are opposites, I simply asked you to back up your statement that "All arguments below and above, before this post and after are Completely, irrevocably invalid. "
You telling me to read the book "Twenty Questions" is not proving your statement.
If you are so sure of yourself, then you must be very familiar with his theories, you should be able to provide me with proof of your statement.
0
#978 to #977 - redwolfradolf has deleted their comment [-]
#983 to #978 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
I wont be replying to you anymore today, but I do hope you come up with at least some kind of an attempt to prove your claim.
0
#987 to #983 - redwolfradolf has deleted their comment [-]
#980 to #978 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
Yeah, that is what I though, you are just another idiot who thinks he is high and mighty, but when presented with a challenge, backs down like a dog with his tail between his legs.
You made that claim, you must be able to prove it, otherwise you are simply an idiot.
And your excuse, "Why, then, must I do your work for you? ", is pathetic, at best, I though that somebody arrogant as you, would have at least tried to prove his highly unintelligent claim.
You strike me as somebody who thinks that using uncommon linguistics and reading a few books makes you smart.
0
#982 to #980 - redwolfradolf has deleted their comment [-]
#989 to #982 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
Oh the arrogance and assumptions, and not to forget the huge amount of ignorance. Never did I say that I am an atheist.
How can you even make such a claim, if you have not even finished the book? How can you be so confident in his theories if you have not even read them all, you have not even finished the book.
0
#990 to #989 - redwolfradolf has deleted their comment [-]
#991 to #990 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
It was before you posted comment #982, since I thought that coming up with your proof would take more time then I would stay online, but since you did not even try and revealed that you have not even finished the book, I see that there is no way you can back your claim.
Next time, before making wild statements, you should think if you can prove them, otherwise it is just, as you said, pointless strife.
Im off to bed now and will not be replying anymore today.
User avatar #1006 to #991 - redwolfradolf (07/10/2012) [-]
Alright.
thanks to the time I had to think about the whole situation, I realize that I was indeed making an ass of myself.
I suppose there really was no call for this, but I never claimed to be perfect.
Please acept my most sencere apologies for this whole thing.
#1020 to #1006 - anonymous (07/10/2012) [-]
Apologies accepted, and I must say, it is nice to see somebody realize they made a mistake and admit it, not go on arguing like a stubborn mule.
User avatar #1022 to #1020 - redwolfradolf (07/10/2012) [-]
Socrates once said:
"I did not think i was the wisest person in all of greece, until I realized that at least I had the wisdom to see that I didn't know."
User avatar #942 to #937 - redwolfradolf (07/09/2012) [-]
why do you say that's ******** ?
I included an article for proof.
Where's your proof?
User avatar #962 to #942 - thegamegestapo (07/09/2012) [-]
I wasn't disputing that the guy existed but you're just name dropping. It doesn't really matter if the guys a genius or a complete idiot, it's rather like saying atheism is more valid because Sarah Palin is religious and she's as thick as a plank.

TLDR? There are clever people on both sides.
User avatar #965 to #962 - redwolfradolf (07/09/2012) [-]
I was merely pointing out that Science and Religion are not opposites.
Anyone who says they are, regardless of which side they are on, is an idiot.
User avatar #968 to #965 - thegamegestapo (07/09/2012) [-]
I misunderstood, my apologies.

You've kind of got a point I guess. Moderate religion that's open to adaptation is, It's just the beliefs of the morons that make the news that are incompatible with the other side.
User avatar #969 to #968 - redwolfradolf (07/09/2012) [-]
The media is made of fools and puppets.
Disregard them, only believe what you know for yourself.

Heh, I thought you said "Beliefs of the mormons"
I was almost a tad rustled....
User avatar #935 to #931 - thesmarterblackkid (07/09/2012) [-]
All you had to do was throw issac newtons name around and that would have done more than solidify your point.
User avatar #941 to #935 - redwolfradolf (07/09/2012) [-]
John Polkinghorne is a little more modern.
He actually worked on string theory
 Friends (0)