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

[djprestige21]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

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. 

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

Lets mock someone who became the most powerful man of the free world.

He may know baseball... But he is nowhere near intelligent...

are you talking about yourself right now?

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by kix4kix

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.

Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN 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. 

Never took that.

Still don't see how it can't be both.

No "theory" has been proven, so how can one maintain that science, and God can not go hand in hand? Unless someone has proven a theorem on how we got here


And @ Rails, unless you Baptist NOBODY takes the bible literally, I am not a christian, but taking it Literally is idiotic. It was written by men.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by kix4kix

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.

Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN 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. 

Never took that.

Still don't see how it can't be both.

No "theory" has been proven, so how can one maintain that science, and God can not go hand in hand? Unless someone has proven a theorem on how we got here


And @ Rails, unless you Baptist NOBODY takes the bible literally, I am not a christian, but taking it Literally is idiotic. It was written by men.

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by kix4kix

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.

Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN 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. 

Never took that.

Still don't see how it can't be both.

No "theory" has been proven, so how can one maintain that science, and God can not go hand in hand? Unless someone has proven a theorem on how we got here


And @ Rails, unless you Baptist NOBODY takes the bible literally, I am not a christian, but taking it Literally is idiotic. It was written by men.

Then why dare assert yourself as competent in the issues. Its utterly annoying if you're attempting to debate something you know nothing about. Read up on it. I highly encourage you to do so.

Also... on your "understanding" of theory, peep this:

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.[sup]1[/sup]That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just atheory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.[sup]2[/sup] It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes alaw.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things.Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)[sup]3[/sup] happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.[sup]4[/sup] Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.[sup]5[/sup]

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

---

• http://[sup]1[/sup] Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary
• http://[sup]2[/sup] Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
• http://[sup]3[/sup] A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
• http://[sup]4[/sup] Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould
• http://[sup]5[/sup] The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by kix4kix

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.

Who created the single celled organisms? It really CAN 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. 

Never took that.

Still don't see how it can't be both.

No "theory" has been proven, so how can one maintain that science, and God can not go hand in hand? Unless someone has proven a theorem on how we got here


And @ Rails, unless you Baptist NOBODY takes the bible literally, I am not a christian, but taking it Literally is idiotic. It was written by men.

Then why dare assert yourself as competent in the issues. Its utterly annoying if you're attempting to debate something you know nothing about. Read up on it. I highly encourage you to do so.

Also... on your "understanding" of theory, peep this:

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.[sup]1[/sup]That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just atheory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.[sup]2[/sup] It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes alaw.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things.Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)[sup]3[/sup] happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.[sup]4[/sup] Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.[sup]5[/sup]

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

---

• http://[sup]1[/sup] Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary
• http://[sup]2[/sup] Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
• http://[sup]3[/sup] A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
• http://[sup]4[/sup] Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould
• http://[sup]5[/sup] The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer

 

[kix4kix]

Relax bro. I wasn't claiming to be an expert in here on the subject of Biology. I was debunking someone stating that God and evolution cannot coincide, I am saying, unless he can prove how the Universe - (not humans) began, how can one possibly trace the origin of anything?

 

[kix4kix]

Relax bro. I wasn't claiming to be an expert in here on the subject of Biology. I was debunking someone stating that God and evolution cannot coincide, I am saying, unless he can prove how the Universe - (not humans) began, how can one possibly trace the origin of anything?

 

[|A-Man|]

So we can't call ppl stupid for saying stupid things? Because O'Reilly has a degree at a prestigious college we should just excuse him not knowing how the Earth revolves around the Sun? Did anyone actually watch the two videos? Talking about how did it get there and then falls back on his belief that a wizard did it? Which has no type of support or evidence for it?

You can't avoid criticism by labeling what you say as "opinion" cuz then it's just someone else's opinion that your opinion is stupid and consequently can make others stupid.

 

[|A-Man|]

So we can't call ppl stupid for saying stupid things? Because O'Reilly has a degree at a prestigious college we should just excuse him not knowing how the Earth revolves around the Sun? Did anyone actually watch the two videos? Talking about how did it get there and then falls back on his belief that a wizard did it? Which has no type of support or evidence for it?

You can't avoid criticism by labeling what you say as "opinion" cuz then it's just someone else's opinion that your opinion is stupid and consequently can make others stupid.

 

[whiterails]

kix4kix wrote:

And @ Rails, unless you Baptist NOBODY takes the bible literally, I am not a christian, but taking it Literally is idiotic. It was written by men.


People who outright don't believe in evolution are pretty much taking the Christian creationist story literally, which is tragically a large portion of the United States..
From a Newsweek poll:

"However, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[whiterails]

kix4kix wrote:

And @ Rails, unless you Baptist NOBODY takes the bible literally, I am not a christian, but taking it Literally is idiotic. It was written by men.


People who outright don't believe in evolution are pretty much taking the Christian creationist story literally, which is tragically a large portion of the United States..
From a Newsweek poll:

"However, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[createdestroy]

 

[createdestroy]

 

[copped]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

 

[copped]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

 

[dame theory]

if you think the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, kill yourself.

 

[dame theory]

if you think the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, kill yourself.

 

[copped]

get on my religious/spiritual level bro bro...

mad that I am religious and I got a great family, more money, better things, hotter girls, and everything you hold important i got better than you....

plus i'm happy and love life....



its all good bro bro...just keep telling them why you mad in paragraphs though...bro bro



so tell me now bro bro....what is your whole atheist thing doing for you really???

 

[copped]

get on my religious/spiritual level bro bro...

mad that I am religious and I got a great family, more money, better things, hotter girls, and everything you hold important i got better than you....

plus i'm happy and love life....



its all good bro bro...just keep telling them why you mad in paragraphs though...bro bro



so tell me now bro bro....what is your whole atheist thing doing for you really???

 

[copped]

bro bro

 

[copped]

bro bro

 

[youmadyoubad]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

That was deep 

 

[youmadyoubad]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

That was deep 

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

That was deep 

shots fired, need an ambulance

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

That was deep 

shots fired, need an ambulance