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

0qtgm.jpg
 
Originally Posted by jmadidas2001

What I don't understand about this thread is why there is even a debate?  The questions that O'Reilly is asking are easily explained by Scientists...

And...the fact that anyone from our generation still doesn't understand the difference between "Scientific Theory" and the word "theory" in the colloquial sense just blows my mind...SMH...seriously?

It's 2011...wake up...the debate is over...Humans evolved from lesser life forms...the only thing I can tell people that don't believe this is...if you want to continue to believe that "god" created man...believe that "god" MADE Human Evolution happen if it makes you sleep better at night...

If the sequence is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10..."8" is missing...and, just because you don't see the "8" in the sequence, doesn't mean you can't go from 1 to 10...right???  That is what you are doing if you are arguing against Human Evolution...you can't have it both ways...you can't believe in "some" science...either you believe that Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules come together and form water or you don't...if you believe this, you also believe in the half-life of atoms and thus believe in carbon dating...thus, you believe that we can date and sequence fossil finds of human ancestors...

Obviously this is a very simple view and I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am a rational and logical human being...

JM
You are arguing yourself in circles in your own paragraph. I understand the difference between scientific theory and theory in the "colloquial" sense. Facts are interpreted differently. For your benefit, evolution is still "scientific theory." Hydrogen and oxygen molecules = water, that's "scientific fact." See the difference? 
 
Originally Posted by jmadidas2001

What I don't understand about this thread is why there is even a debate?  The questions that O'Reilly is asking are easily explained by Scientists...

And...the fact that anyone from our generation still doesn't understand the difference between "Scientific Theory" and the word "theory" in the colloquial sense just blows my mind...SMH...seriously?

It's 2011...wake up...the debate is over...Humans evolved from lesser life forms...the only thing I can tell people that don't believe this is...if you want to continue to believe that "god" created man...believe that "god" MADE Human Evolution happen if it makes you sleep better at night...

If the sequence is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10..."8" is missing...and, just because you don't see the "8" in the sequence, doesn't mean you can't go from 1 to 10...right???  That is what you are doing if you are arguing against Human Evolution...you can't have it both ways...you can't believe in "some" science...either you believe that Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules come together and form water or you don't...if you believe this, you also believe in the half-life of atoms and thus believe in carbon dating...thus, you believe that we can date and sequence fossil finds of human ancestors...

Obviously this is a very simple view and I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am a rational and logical human being...

JM
You are arguing yourself in circles in your own paragraph. I understand the difference between scientific theory and theory in the "colloquial" sense. Facts are interpreted differently. For your benefit, evolution is still "scientific theory." Hydrogen and oxygen molecules = water, that's "scientific fact." See the difference? 
 
The invention of lying was hysterical. A man from earth is another one atheists might enjoy.
 
The invention of lying was hysterical. A man from earth is another one atheists might enjoy.
 
Originally Posted by Bearcat23

Originally Posted by jmadidas2001

What I don't understand about this thread is why there is even a debate?  The questions that O'Reilly is asking are easily explained by Scientists...

And...the fact that anyone from our generation still doesn't understand the difference between "Scientific Theory" and the word "theory" in the colloquial sense just blows my mind...SMH...seriously?

It's 2011...wake up...the debate is over...Humans evolved from lesser life forms...the only thing I can tell people that don't believe this is...if you want to continue to believe that "god" created man...believe that "god" MADE Human Evolution happen if it makes you sleep better at night...

If the sequence is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10..."8" is missing...and, just because you don't see the "8" in the sequence, doesn't mean you can't go from 1 to 10...right???  That is what you are doing if you are arguing against Human Evolution...you can't have it both ways...you can't believe in "some" science...either you believe that Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules come together and form water or you don't...if you believe this, you also believe in the half-life of atoms and thus believe in carbon dating...thus, you believe that we can date and sequence fossil finds of human ancestors...

Obviously this is a very simple view and I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am a rational and logical human being...

JM
You are arguing yourself in circles in your own paragraph. I understand the difference between scientific theory and theory in the "colloquial" sense. Facts are interpreted differently. For your benefit, evolution is still "scientific theory." Hydrogen and oxygen molecules = water, that's "scientific fact." See the difference? 
Atomic Theory...

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

JM
 
Originally Posted by Bearcat23

Originally Posted by jmadidas2001

What I don't understand about this thread is why there is even a debate?  The questions that O'Reilly is asking are easily explained by Scientists...

And...the fact that anyone from our generation still doesn't understand the difference between "Scientific Theory" and the word "theory" in the colloquial sense just blows my mind...SMH...seriously?

It's 2011...wake up...the debate is over...Humans evolved from lesser life forms...the only thing I can tell people that don't believe this is...if you want to continue to believe that "god" created man...believe that "god" MADE Human Evolution happen if it makes you sleep better at night...

If the sequence is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10..."8" is missing...and, just because you don't see the "8" in the sequence, doesn't mean you can't go from 1 to 10...right???  That is what you are doing if you are arguing against Human Evolution...you can't have it both ways...you can't believe in "some" science...either you believe that Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules come together and form water or you don't...if you believe this, you also believe in the half-life of atoms and thus believe in carbon dating...thus, you believe that we can date and sequence fossil finds of human ancestors...

Obviously this is a very simple view and I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am a rational and logical human being...

JM
You are arguing yourself in circles in your own paragraph. I understand the difference between scientific theory and theory in the "colloquial" sense. Facts are interpreted differently. For your benefit, evolution is still "scientific theory." Hydrogen and oxygen molecules = water, that's "scientific fact." See the difference? 
Atomic Theory...

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

JM
 
Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How did God get there?
How did nothing get there? 
pimp.gif

I don't have the answers but one thing is clear the "Something couldn't have come from nothing" argument used by religious people is flawed. God had to have come from nothing.


I think chalking basic things like the tides is an excuse for ignorant people to not have to think.
 
Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How did God get there?
How did nothing get there? 
pimp.gif

I don't have the answers but one thing is clear the "Something couldn't have come from nothing" argument used by religious people is flawed. God had to have come from nothing.


I think chalking basic things like the tides is an excuse for ignorant people to not have to think.
 
Originally Posted by DecemberLove

I don't find anything wrong with either of the videos

this.
it is his opinion (though many dont agree with it, including yours truly).

from what i can tell from watching his show, he was hired for his ability

to latch on to weaknesses in his guests arguments on his show and increase

his volume to get his point across. or to argue on a point so profoundly ignorant

that the person is usually just confounded by his retort.

he his an intelligent man, doesn't mean he's smart or wise.
 
Originally Posted by DecemberLove

I don't find anything wrong with either of the videos

this.
it is his opinion (though many dont agree with it, including yours truly).

from what i can tell from watching his show, he was hired for his ability

to latch on to weaknesses in his guests arguments on his show and increase

his volume to get his point across. or to argue on a point so profoundly ignorant

that the person is usually just confounded by his retort.

he his an intelligent man, doesn't mean he's smart or wise.
 
I really don't even pay this douche any attention, but the one thing he isn't is stupid.
 
I really don't even pay this douche any attention, but the one thing he isn't is stupid.
 
Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How did God get there?
How did nothing get there? 
pimp.gif
laugh.gif


It's more worthwhile to investigate how we came from nothing than where GOD came from. Especially if you approach it with the idea that everything doesn't need to have a creator and somethings can simply always have been there. Adding on the concept of GOD is completely unnecessary. Any theist with the stance that GOD did it are not actively investigating where such a complex intelligent being originated from. They simply say GOD did it, claim he's superior and incomprehensible so we should be satisfied with such a piss poor answer. If you suppose everything came from something/has a creator it is your task to continually provide the creator's creator and so and so forth, infinitely regressing.
 
Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How did God get there?
How did nothing get there? 
pimp.gif
laugh.gif


It's more worthwhile to investigate how we came from nothing than where GOD came from. Especially if you approach it with the idea that everything doesn't need to have a creator and somethings can simply always have been there. Adding on the concept of GOD is completely unnecessary. Any theist with the stance that GOD did it are not actively investigating where such a complex intelligent being originated from. They simply say GOD did it, claim he's superior and incomprehensible so we should be satisfied with such a piss poor answer. If you suppose everything came from something/has a creator it is your task to continually provide the creator's creator and so and so forth, infinitely regressing.
 
Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How did God get there?
How did nothing get there? 
pimp.gif
laugh.gif


It's more worthwhile to investigate how we came from nothing than where GOD came from. Especially if you approach it with the idea that everything doesn't need to have a creator and somethings can simply always have been there. Adding on the concept of GOD is completely unnecessary. Any theist with the stance that GOD did it are not actively investigating where such a complex intelligent being originated from. They simply say GOD did it, claim he's superior and incomprehensible so we should be satisfied with such a piss poor answer. If you suppose everything came from something/has a creator it is your task to continually provide the creator's creator and so and so forth, infinitely regressing.

Like I said, religion makes a virtue out of NOT THINKING.
 
Back
Top Bottom