|A-Man|
formerly atgd7154xbbxmz
- 17,340
- 2,011
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
Creationism and Intelligent design have their own flaws on their own. You don't need another scientific theory to discredit it since neither are even a scientific theory.
Bill O'Reilly...tell me you can do better than this... you can't be this stupid...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by dame theory,
- Start date
|A-Man|
formerly atgd7154xbbxmz
- 17,340
- 2,011
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
Creationism and Intelligent design have their own flaws on their own. You don't need another scientific theory to discredit it since neither are even a scientific theory.
- 36,989
- 12,285
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
- 36,989
- 12,285
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
Lets mock someone who became the most powerful man of the free world.Originally Posted by Essential1
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
Lets mock someone who became the most powerful man of the free world.Originally Posted by Essential1
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
I'm just trying to say you have no warrant or credibility.Originally Posted by Dame Theory
What are you REALLY saying with this?Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I'm positive thats what the other guy was also saying.
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
I'm just trying to say you have no warrant or credibility.Originally Posted by Dame Theory
What are you REALLY saying with this?Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I'm positive thats what the other guy was also saying.
- 90
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
^ I don't think Bush is stupid.
But, reading is fundamental. Where is O'reilly's pedigree?
That is the whole point of this argument. It went on a tangent in the never ending debate of intelligent design, evolution, the big bang theory etc. Which wasn't my intention. It was simply to say that just because someone's beliefs do not line up with yours, does not make them "stupid."
But yes Dame Theory, I've never read a book, I am a "lame" and I have zero credibility. But I'm not calling anyone "stupid." Especially those that are more accomplished, knowledgeable and successful myself. Stupid is not a static concept.
But, reading is fundamental. Where is O'reilly's pedigree?
That is the whole point of this argument. It went on a tangent in the never ending debate of intelligent design, evolution, the big bang theory etc. Which wasn't my intention. It was simply to say that just because someone's beliefs do not line up with yours, does not make them "stupid."
But yes Dame Theory, I've never read a book, I am a "lame" and I have zero credibility. But I'm not calling anyone "stupid." Especially those that are more accomplished, knowledgeable and successful myself. Stupid is not a static concept.
- 90
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
^ I don't think Bush is stupid.
But, reading is fundamental. Where is O'reilly's pedigree?
That is the whole point of this argument. It went on a tangent in the never ending debate of intelligent design, evolution, the big bang theory etc. Which wasn't my intention. It was simply to say that just because someone's beliefs do not line up with yours, does not make them "stupid."
But yes Dame Theory, I've never read a book, I am a "lame" and I have zero credibility. But I'm not calling anyone "stupid." Especially those that are more accomplished, knowledgeable and successful myself. Stupid is not a static concept.
But, reading is fundamental. Where is O'reilly's pedigree?
That is the whole point of this argument. It went on a tangent in the never ending debate of intelligent design, evolution, the big bang theory etc. Which wasn't my intention. It was simply to say that just because someone's beliefs do not line up with yours, does not make them "stupid."
But yes Dame Theory, I've never read a book, I am a "lame" and I have zero credibility. But I'm not calling anyone "stupid." Especially those that are more accomplished, knowledgeable and successful myself. Stupid is not a static concept.
- 19,563
- 6,839
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
all he said basically was to not hate on him for his beliefs if there is no 100% true facts. he has questions and theorys just like every body else
- 19,563
- 6,839
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
all he said basically was to not hate on him for his beliefs if there is no 100% true facts. he has questions and theorys just like every body else
- 36,989
- 12,285
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
He may know baseball... But he is nowhere near intelligent...Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Lets mock someone who became the most powerful man of the free world.Originally Posted by Essential1
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
- 36,989
- 12,285
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
He may know baseball... But he is nowhere near intelligent...Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Lets mock someone who became the most powerful man of the free world.Originally Posted by Essential1
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN be both.Originally Posted by whiterails
....Originally Posted by megachamploo
Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...
just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.
This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.
A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.
One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.
The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.
Can't be both.
- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN be both.Originally Posted by whiterails
....Originally Posted by megachamploo
Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...
just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.
This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.
A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.
One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.
The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.
Can't be both.
- 1,842
- 19
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
I never call someone stupid for their opinion, usually they're just hard headed or uninformed/misinformed.
There's a lot of stuff out there that the uninformed will treat as fact, and that's what their opinions are based on, so I don't bag on them I just let them live.
There's a lot of stuff out there that the uninformed will treat as fact, and that's what their opinions are based on, so I don't bag on them I just let them live.
- 1,842
- 19
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
I never call someone stupid for their opinion, usually they're just hard headed or uninformed/misinformed.
There's a lot of stuff out there that the uninformed will treat as fact, and that's what their opinions are based on, so I don't bag on them I just let them live.
There's a lot of stuff out there that the uninformed will treat as fact, and that's what their opinions are based on, so I don't bag on them I just let them live.
dame theory
Banned
- 3,281
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Originally Posted by kix4kix
Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN be both.Originally Posted by whiterails
....Originally Posted by megachamploo
Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...
just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.
This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.
A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.
One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.
The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.
Can't be both.
If you knew about how micelles and bilipid layers form from the energetic confirmations of their component molecules then you would be aware of the lower energy confirmations enabled by the formation of cells.
Its all explained in an intro bio course.
dame theory
Banned
- 3,281
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Originally Posted by kix4kix
Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN be both.Originally Posted by whiterails
....Originally Posted by megachamploo
Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...
just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.
This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.
A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.
One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.
The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.
Can't be both.
If you knew about how micelles and bilipid layers form from the energetic confirmations of their component molecules then you would be aware of the lower energy confirmations enabled by the formation of cells.
Its all explained in an intro bio course.
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
It can't though. The traditional creationist theory literally says that God created "finished" humans, i.e. Adam and Eve... not single celled organisms.Originally Posted by kix4kix
Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN be both.Originally Posted by whiterails
....Originally Posted by megachamploo
Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...
just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.
This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.
A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.
One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.
The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.
Can't be both.
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
It can't though. The traditional creationist theory literally says that God created "finished" humans, i.e. Adam and Eve... not single celled organisms.Originally Posted by kix4kix
Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN be both.Originally Posted by whiterails
....Originally Posted by megachamploo
Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...
just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.
This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.
A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.
One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.
The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.
Can't be both.
dame theory
Banned
- 3,281
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
I refuse to accept this opinion. As a PUBLIC INFLUENTIAL figure it is your DUTY to NOT mislead people especially when such information is widely available. It is dishonest and a disgrace to the pursuit of truth and intellect.
dame theory
Banned
- 3,281
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
I refuse to accept this opinion. As a PUBLIC INFLUENTIAL figure it is your DUTY to NOT mislead people especially when such information is widely available. It is dishonest and a disgrace to the pursuit of truth and intellect.
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
are you talking about yourself right now?Originally Posted by Essential1
He may know baseball... But he is nowhere near intelligent...Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Lets mock someone who became the most powerful man of the free world.Originally Posted by Essential1
Originally Posted by DJprestige21
Got em'
I don't think O'Reilly is stupid at all
but to put it in perspective...
This guy went to Yale and Harvard
