dame theory
Banned
- 3,281
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Originally Posted by Bearcat23
To say anyone other than God did it means you KNOW that there was another cause of "it," which is in essence false.
Like you said, a theory is a model. As is hypothesis. It is not fact.
Do you understand the flaw yet?
Pointing me to abiogenesis is as futile as pointing someone to the Book of Genesis, Darwin's Black Box or any other Creationist "model."
Getting the point yet?
A. There is a common misunderstanding that "theory" in the scientific sense is equivalent to "hypothesis" and this always isn't true. The theory of evolution is called a theory when it in should be called a fact. Things like abiogenesis have been proven and replicated time and time again.
B. MERELY addressing the points Oreilly put up, all of his questions can be answered IN TOTALITY as we can not only show evidence of the formation of the solar system, we can also refer him to a plethora of astronomers that can witness this formation of planets and gases in other solar systems. Its real and it happens.
Comparing factual evidence to a book created by man to control man is irrelevant. There is more evidence to suggest God DIDNT do it than there is to say God DID do it. You are lying to yourself if you choose to ignore that. Additionally on that same note, there is more evidence to suggest spontaneous existence of life rather than creation of life.
...and Yes. OReilly is stupid. You can go to the best schools and have the best education and still be reluctant to have a basic understanding of elementary principles of science or be versed enough in the ability to think critically. For goodness sakes he can't explain the tides on the shore-line and thinks God does it. You can't argue with a man like that. Especially when he refuses to accept the explanation for it. ORielly even changes his answer to represent that he learned that the Moon impacts the tides. BEFORE this he said he didn't know that God did it. Do you not know the power of education? By virtue of an answer like that you can judge how else he might view the world. Lets not pretend OReilly has ever shown himself to be a representative of rationale on a consistent basis.