Bill O'Reilly...tell me you can do better than this... you can't be this stupid...

[bearcat23]

^ And there are some that "witness" it, and say it's a simple adaptation, and not evolution. See mutation theory. 

 

[bearcat23]

^ And there are some that "witness" it, and say it's a simple adaptation, and not evolution. See mutation theory. 

 

[kash55]

Holy crap this guy is an idiot. I know he's a **** but I though he was smarter than this, maybe he's putting up a front for his audience.

 

[kash55]

Holy crap this guy is an idiot. I know he's a **** but I though he was smarter than this, maybe he's putting up a front for his audience.

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

^ And there are some that "witness" it, and say it's a simple adaptation, and not evolution. See mutation theory. 

O...K... whats your point? Things evolve. 
Mutation has been shown as a vehicle for evolution. Not sure what you're getting at. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

^ And there are some that "witness" it, and say it's a simple adaptation, and not evolution. See mutation theory. 

O...K... whats your point? Things evolve. 
Mutation has been shown as a vehicle for evolution. Not sure what you're getting at. 

 

[bearcat23]

^ Mutation as a vehicle of evolution. . . Read mutation theory. Mutation is largely harmful. 
300 jump off a roof. 299 die. 1 survives. 

This is largely your issue with this equation correct? We have numbers on our side, must be correct?  But with mutation. . . if you're banking on numbers. . . the odds are with the  299. Mutation banks on the 1 (numbers obviously fitting my previous example and not completely within the realm of the exact probability). 

I'm not saying that evolution is not true. I'm not saying creationism isn't true. I'm saying, both require a leap of faith. 

 

[bearcat23]

^ Mutation as a vehicle of evolution. . . Read mutation theory. Mutation is largely harmful. 
300 jump off a roof. 299 die. 1 survives. 

This is largely your issue with this equation correct? We have numbers on our side, must be correct?  But with mutation. . . if you're banking on numbers. . . the odds are with the  299. Mutation banks on the 1 (numbers obviously fitting my previous example and not completely within the realm of the exact probability). 

I'm not saying that evolution is not true. I'm not saying creationism isn't true. I'm saying, both require a leap of faith. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

^ Mutation as a vehicle of evolution. . . Read mutation theory. Mutation is largely harmful. 
300 jump off a roof. 299 die. 1 survives. 

This is largely your issue with this equation correct? We have numbers on our side, must be correct?  But with mutation. . . if you're banking on numbers. . . the odds are with the  299. Mutation banks on the 1 (numbers obviously fitting my previous example and not completely within the realm of the exact probability). 

I'm not saying that evolution is not true. I'm not saying creationism isn't true. I'm saying, both require a leap of faith. 

Thats partially why you can't predict evolution. Mutation does bank on that 1, which is why it takes so long and is often carried by those that fully express the mutation until in later generations. Its a tedious process but it is a major vehicle of change. Evolution doesn't require a leap of faith. Its fully supportable by evidence. What evidence is there for creation? Don't use the "irreducible complexity" argument because in my eyes, it just says, "we don't understand it so god did it." That is dishonest intellectually. It is very possible that through understanding energy conformations and stable states of molecular interaction we can better understand how things break down on that note. Why would anyone support that notion? You say the human body is TOO complex....well maybe its just complex to you. To other species you could very well be very simple. Or rather what if it just WAS. Isn't the idea that you could always think life was complex or just as simple no matter how you viewed it? Do you always see other things as complex? Would you see yourself as complex if you looked extremely different? Its unfair to just resort to that argument. Its a means of running from just accepting things as they are. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

^ Mutation as a vehicle of evolution. . . Read mutation theory. Mutation is largely harmful. 
300 jump off a roof. 299 die. 1 survives. 

This is largely your issue with this equation correct? We have numbers on our side, must be correct?  But with mutation. . . if you're banking on numbers. . . the odds are with the  299. Mutation banks on the 1 (numbers obviously fitting my previous example and not completely within the realm of the exact probability). 

I'm not saying that evolution is not true. I'm not saying creationism isn't true. I'm saying, both require a leap of faith. 

Thats partially why you can't predict evolution. Mutation does bank on that 1, which is why it takes so long and is often carried by those that fully express the mutation until in later generations. Its a tedious process but it is a major vehicle of change. Evolution doesn't require a leap of faith. Its fully supportable by evidence. What evidence is there for creation? Don't use the "irreducible complexity" argument because in my eyes, it just says, "we don't understand it so god did it." That is dishonest intellectually. It is very possible that through understanding energy conformations and stable states of molecular interaction we can better understand how things break down on that note. Why would anyone support that notion? You say the human body is TOO complex....well maybe its just complex to you. To other species you could very well be very simple. Or rather what if it just WAS. Isn't the idea that you could always think life was complex or just as simple no matter how you viewed it? Do you always see other things as complex? Would you see yourself as complex if you looked extremely different? Its unfair to just resort to that argument. Its a means of running from just accepting things as they are. 

 

[dame theory]

 

[dame theory]

 

[bearcat23]

So, if we're banking on mutation, we're going against the odds. 
But, if we say irreducible complexity, we're saying we simply don't understand it. This is not academically dishonest, but is simply going within the realm of possibility.  . It's the same concept that if a BMW M3, all parts included, dropped from the sky, and came perfectly assembled. We can't quite understand how that could happen. Granted, given the exact perfect, incredible, amazing circumstances, everything being equal it could happen is a possibility. The perfect graviational pulls, materials etc., possible. What is the more probable theory?Someone assembled it, correct? That's Behe's point throughout his tenure. Not to say that it is unimaginable, totally incomprehensible, no way in any universe this could happen. But more probably, an intelligent design. 

You're coming from an absolutist point of view. It's just not that simple. 

 

[bearcat23]

So, if we're banking on mutation, we're going against the odds. 
But, if we say irreducible complexity, we're saying we simply don't understand it. This is not academically dishonest, but is simply going within the realm of possibility.  . It's the same concept that if a BMW M3, all parts included, dropped from the sky, and came perfectly assembled. We can't quite understand how that could happen. Granted, given the exact perfect, incredible, amazing circumstances, everything being equal it could happen is a possibility. The perfect graviational pulls, materials etc., possible. What is the more probable theory?Someone assembled it, correct? That's Behe's point throughout his tenure. Not to say that it is unimaginable, totally incomprehensible, no way in any universe this could happen. But more probably, an intelligent design. 

You're coming from an absolutist point of view. It's just not that simple. 

 

[grypr33]

I want to see him get destroyed in a debate with any of the men he mentioned.

 

[grypr33]

I want to see him get destroyed in a debate with any of the men he mentioned.

 

[lobotomybeats]

I love how cynical he sounds when he says something to the effect of "and that other British guy who makes a fortune being an Atheist", as if he doesn't make a fortune due to playing up his Christianity!

 

[lobotomybeats]

I love how cynical he sounds when he says something to the effect of "and that other British guy who makes a fortune being an Atheist", as if he doesn't make a fortune due to playing up his Christianity!

 

[g14]

yeah this is all a front for fox news


even bill knows this is all junk that the church going tea party Americans will eat up

evolution is very real long as two life-forms are the in the area of each other

life will evolve from both to form a new creation

 

[g14]

yeah this is all a front for fox news


even bill knows this is all junk that the church going tea party Americans will eat up

evolution is very real long as two life-forms are the in the area of each other

life will evolve from both to form a new creation

 

[murda he]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

"Stupid" 
Hawking - Oxford

Behe - Penn

O'reilly - Harvard

Dame Theory - ? 

The point is, none of these people are "stupid." Differing opinions on the origin of the universe, earth, species... do not make a person stupid, but rather, differing in their opinions. 

But it's DAME THEORY

... dude's been on NT a matter of weeks and he's already shown himself to be one of those close minded "What I say or ELSE" type of guys... which is why I don't "debate" with him or people like him in threads like this. They already know what they WANT to hear and what they WANT to be the consensus. It's not a debate when it's like that... it's just preachers and anti-preachers yelling at each other...  as usual.

Rolaholic wrote:

---

Typical NT athiest thread

And I don't support Bill O'Reilly at all for the things he says but let people believe what they want to believe. No one's stupid because of what they believe in.


Tell em again Rolaholic

 

[murda he]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

"Stupid" 
Hawking - Oxford

Behe - Penn

O'reilly - Harvard

Dame Theory - ? 

The point is, none of these people are "stupid." Differing opinions on the origin of the universe, earth, species... do not make a person stupid, but rather, differing in their opinions. 

But it's DAME THEORY

... dude's been on NT a matter of weeks and he's already shown himself to be one of those close minded "What I say or ELSE" type of guys... which is why I don't "debate" with him or people like him in threads like this. They already know what they WANT to hear and what they WANT to be the consensus. It's not a debate when it's like that... it's just preachers and anti-preachers yelling at each other...  as usual.

Rolaholic wrote:

---

Typical NT athiest thread

And I don't support Bill O'Reilly at all for the things he says but let people believe what they want to believe. No one's stupid because of what they believe in.


Tell em again Rolaholic

 

[likethematrix]

"All living creatures place their faith in someone more powerful than them and they cannot survive unless they blindly follow that person. The recipient of that faith then seeks out someone in an even higher position in order to escape from the pressure. That person then seeks out someone even more powerful that he must put his faith in. In this way, all kings are born. And in this way, all Gods are born."
Kubo Tite

 

[likethematrix]

"All living creatures place their faith in someone more powerful than them and they cannot survive unless they blindly follow that person. The recipient of that faith then seeks out someone in an even higher position in order to escape from the pressure. That person then seeks out someone even more powerful that he must put his faith in. In this way, all kings are born. And in this way, all Gods are born."
Kubo Tite

 

[tbwsf]

threads like this always end the same