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

[dame theory]

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. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

How the Earth, moon and sun got here. How did the amoeba get here?  Dame Theory, please provide your response, that is not a "theory." 
The sun. The tide. O'reilly granted in the first video.  Those comments are answered through simple science, agreed. O'reilly's point in both is from a creation aspect, neither of those issues are a focal point and were, I agree, poor form. 

A theory is a model used to describe phenomena. Saying God did it is a refusal to accept information but also a resort to ignorance. Its okay to say "I dont know." To say God did it means you KNOW God did it...which is in essence false. 
You want my response? Look up abiogenesis and its surrounding theories. I can point you to information, I can't take the time to break it down for you. 

 To believe in a higher being that explains creation is to have faith, and with you attacking all forms of this faith is disrespect and ignorance on your part.  



If you listened closely instead of rushing to post these videos on NT, trying to downplay Christianity, you would realize that Bill O'Reilly's ultimate point is that he doesn't believe in all creation being a "mistake."

There are many other examples that support his arguments e.g. the Earth's axis, its distance and relation to the sun and moon, etc.

Another common misconception.



If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect, by all means, I hope it will. Its time people saw @+%$ for what it really was. You all are animals with encephalized forebrains that want to feel special when you die and when unfortunate things happen to you.




Funny you think I "rushed to NT to post videos." False. Your attempt at being witty fails you. Bill doesn't think creation is a mistake... Its not about it being a "mistake" its the fact that it happened. Thats it. It is the spontaneous origin of life and all current evidence leads to this. I swear if we find life in its SMALLEST cellular form on another planet everyone will @+%$ their pants. 




You might say the conditions on earth are just right for life. How do you know that? Are you aware of adaptation? In so much as life seems to be "right" for this world, its very possible that the chance for spontaneous creation of life is just as rare. Why do you have to beat the odds all of the time? I hope its not too much to think that yes, the world as we know it could have been by just as much chance that it wasn't. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

How the Earth, moon and sun got here. How did the amoeba get here?  Dame Theory, please provide your response, that is not a "theory." 
The sun. The tide. O'reilly granted in the first video.  Those comments are answered through simple science, agreed. O'reilly's point in both is from a creation aspect, neither of those issues are a focal point and were, I agree, poor form. 

A theory is a model used to describe phenomena. Saying God did it is a refusal to accept information but also a resort to ignorance. Its okay to say "I dont know." To say God did it means you KNOW God did it...which is in essence false. 
You want my response? Look up abiogenesis and its surrounding theories. I can point you to information, I can't take the time to break it down for you. 

 To believe in a higher being that explains creation is to have faith, and with you attacking all forms of this faith is disrespect and ignorance on your part.  



If you listened closely instead of rushing to post these videos on NT, trying to downplay Christianity, you would realize that Bill O'Reilly's ultimate point is that he doesn't believe in all creation being a "mistake."

There are many other examples that support his arguments e.g. the Earth's axis, its distance and relation to the sun and moon, etc.

Another common misconception.



If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect, by all means, I hope it will. Its time people saw @+%$ for what it really was. You all are animals with encephalized forebrains that want to feel special when you die and when unfortunate things happen to you.




Funny you think I "rushed to NT to post videos." False. Your attempt at being witty fails you. Bill doesn't think creation is a mistake... Its not about it being a "mistake" its the fact that it happened. Thats it. It is the spontaneous origin of life and all current evidence leads to this. I swear if we find life in its SMALLEST cellular form on another planet everyone will @+%$ their pants. 




You might say the conditions on earth are just right for life. How do you know that? Are you aware of adaptation? In so much as life seems to be "right" for this world, its very possible that the chance for spontaneous creation of life is just as rare. Why do you have to beat the odds all of the time? I hope its not too much to think that yes, the world as we know it could have been by just as much chance that it wasn't. 

 

[bearcat23]

A. Fact. Why should evolution be fact? Evolution, in the strict sense that we are speaking in, cannot be proven as fact. A single cell ameoba becoming a human being has not yet been "proven" and thus cannot be "fact," in a scientific sense. I'm sorry, you can argue yourself blue, but evolution is not "fact." You can point to micro-evolution, others can point to irreducible complexity. 
B. You're in way over your head here. There is so little agreement in the academic area in the vein of "creation of the universe," it is astounding. Agreed, evolution, in the sense that Darwin and successors described is a relatively well accepted "theory." The creation of the universe, is less developed that pre-Darwin evolution. 

Your bias is clear. I'm not coming from any standpoint, truly.  You are coming from a "book created by man to control man" stance. That's fine, but see the flaws in your reasoning. Your reasoning that there is more evidence to suggest God didn't do it than there is "a god" didn't do it is a simple logical fallacy. Three people jump off a roof, two of them die, the third one doesn't. Does that mean that the fourth one will definitely die? Is this a fact? There's more evidence the fourth one will die, than that he wont. See the point? 

 There's a reason this debate can continue ad nauseum. Nothing in this debate is fact, nor will it become fact anytime soon. 

 

[bearcat23]

A. Fact. Why should evolution be fact? Evolution, in the strict sense that we are speaking in, cannot be proven as fact. A single cell ameoba becoming a human being has not yet been "proven" and thus cannot be "fact," in a scientific sense. I'm sorry, you can argue yourself blue, but evolution is not "fact." You can point to micro-evolution, others can point to irreducible complexity. 
B. You're in way over your head here. There is so little agreement in the academic area in the vein of "creation of the universe," it is astounding. Agreed, evolution, in the sense that Darwin and successors described is a relatively well accepted "theory." The creation of the universe, is less developed that pre-Darwin evolution. 

Your bias is clear. I'm not coming from any standpoint, truly.  You are coming from a "book created by man to control man" stance. That's fine, but see the flaws in your reasoning. Your reasoning that there is more evidence to suggest God didn't do it than there is "a god" didn't do it is a simple logical fallacy. Three people jump off a roof, two of them die, the third one doesn't. Does that mean that the fourth one will definitely die? Is this a fact? There's more evidence the fourth one will die, than that he wont. See the point? 

 There's a reason this debate can continue ad nauseum. Nothing in this debate is fact, nor will it become fact anytime soon. 

 

[its that dude]

We can't "know" anything to 100% certainty. Stephen Hawking (one of the greatest scientists of all time) said that we don't need God to explain the creation of our universe anymore. We have a scientific explanation for it now.

Where Bill O'reilly is dumb is that he believes in God because he doesn't know how tides work. (gravitational pull from moon, surely you believe in the theory of gravity right?). You don't believe the theory of gravity. Think it's all a big conspiracy by scientists to keep you from flying? Go jump off a cliff and then tell me what you think then.

 

[its that dude]

We can't "know" anything to 100% certainty. Stephen Hawking (one of the greatest scientists of all time) said that we don't need God to explain the creation of our universe anymore. We have a scientific explanation for it now.

Where Bill O'reilly is dumb is that he believes in God because he doesn't know how tides work. (gravitational pull from moon, surely you believe in the theory of gravity right?). You don't believe the theory of gravity. Think it's all a big conspiracy by scientists to keep you from flying? Go jump off a cliff and then tell me what you think then.

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

A. Fact. Why should evolution be fact? Evolution, in the strict sense that we are speaking in, cannot be proven as fact. A single cell ameoba becoming a human being has not yet been "proven" and thus cannot be "fact," in a scientific sense. I'm sorry, you can argue yourself blue, but evolution is not "fact." You can point to micro-evolution, others can point to irreducible complexity. 
B. You're in way over your head here. There is so little agreement in the academic area in the vein of "creation of the universe," it is astounding. Agreed, evolution, in the sense that Darwin and successors described is a relatively well accepted "theory." The creation of the universe, is less developed that pre-Darwin evolution. 

Your bias is clear. I'm not coming from any standpoint, truly.  You are coming from a "book created by man to control man" stance. That's fine, but see the flaws in your reasoning. Your reasoning that there is more evidence to suggest God didn't do it than there is "a god" didn't do it is a simple logical fallacy. Three people jump off a roof, two of them die, the third one doesn't. Does that mean that the fourth one will definitely die? Is this a fact? There's more evidence the fourth one will die, than that he wont. See the point? 

 There's a reason this debate can continue ad nauseum. Nothing in this debate is fact, nor will it become fact anytime soon. 

A. Evolution is a fact. It is seen in every form of life from shifting populations of animals to antibacterial resistance disease formation. Its a fact. Its tough for people to accept but its a fact. Its as real as the theory of relativity. Its there. Thats it. To reasonably wait for an amoeba to become a human is going to take quite a few cups of coffee so you can wait on that. I wont. I don't have to have seen a car accident to know that when I see some twisted metal to question that there was an accident and not a car leaving the compactor at the junk yard based on the patterns of impression on the vehicle and its form.
B. Thats why I said to familiarize yourself with abiogenesis and its leading theories. It HAS been done in labs. It happens all the time but we run from the evidence. We don't know. I don't know if we'll ever know. HOWEVER we a making strides to coming to an answer. The fact that we can calculate the rate of expansion in the Universe and attempt to even date the universe is astounding. That speaks to the effort placed on dating what you know to be true and the composition of your existence. 

Your roof analogy doesn't prove or suggest anything. Are you trying to predict death? If your sample size is 3 people, well yeah 66% chance of death. If your sample size is 300, well we can talk. Thats the point of formal statistics. Thats a moot point though. 

Yes there is more evidence to suggest that God did not creative the world as we know it defined by the current concept of a God commonly accepted. I personally can almost say that the realm of God is getting smaller with each advance of science. Each discovery is not limited to the tenets of its discovery but is also refined with additional or competing evidence. The point is to represent reality NOT to reject new information. Its a pruning process that in the end leaves the best and most reformed shape of our understanding of the world. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

A. Fact. Why should evolution be fact? Evolution, in the strict sense that we are speaking in, cannot be proven as fact. A single cell ameoba becoming a human being has not yet been "proven" and thus cannot be "fact," in a scientific sense. I'm sorry, you can argue yourself blue, but evolution is not "fact." You can point to micro-evolution, others can point to irreducible complexity. 
B. You're in way over your head here. There is so little agreement in the academic area in the vein of "creation of the universe," it is astounding. Agreed, evolution, in the sense that Darwin and successors described is a relatively well accepted "theory." The creation of the universe, is less developed that pre-Darwin evolution. 

Your bias is clear. I'm not coming from any standpoint, truly.  You are coming from a "book created by man to control man" stance. That's fine, but see the flaws in your reasoning. Your reasoning that there is more evidence to suggest God didn't do it than there is "a god" didn't do it is a simple logical fallacy. Three people jump off a roof, two of them die, the third one doesn't. Does that mean that the fourth one will definitely die? Is this a fact? There's more evidence the fourth one will die, than that he wont. See the point? 

 There's a reason this debate can continue ad nauseum. Nothing in this debate is fact, nor will it become fact anytime soon. 

A. Evolution is a fact. It is seen in every form of life from shifting populations of animals to antibacterial resistance disease formation. Its a fact. Its tough for people to accept but its a fact. Its as real as the theory of relativity. Its there. Thats it. To reasonably wait for an amoeba to become a human is going to take quite a few cups of coffee so you can wait on that. I wont. I don't have to have seen a car accident to know that when I see some twisted metal to question that there was an accident and not a car leaving the compactor at the junk yard based on the patterns of impression on the vehicle and its form.
B. Thats why I said to familiarize yourself with abiogenesis and its leading theories. It HAS been done in labs. It happens all the time but we run from the evidence. We don't know. I don't know if we'll ever know. HOWEVER we a making strides to coming to an answer. The fact that we can calculate the rate of expansion in the Universe and attempt to even date the universe is astounding. That speaks to the effort placed on dating what you know to be true and the composition of your existence. 

Your roof analogy doesn't prove or suggest anything. Are you trying to predict death? If your sample size is 3 people, well yeah 66% chance of death. If your sample size is 300, well we can talk. Thats the point of formal statistics. Thats a moot point though. 

Yes there is more evidence to suggest that God did not creative the world as we know it defined by the current concept of a God commonly accepted. I personally can almost say that the realm of God is getting smaller with each advance of science. Each discovery is not limited to the tenets of its discovery but is also refined with additional or competing evidence. The point is to represent reality NOT to reject new information. Its a pruning process that in the end leaves the best and most reformed shape of our understanding of the world. 

 

[bearcat23]

It's That Dude - Agreed on all points. We can't know anything with absolute certainty. 
As stated, we can debate this ad nauseum, and get no closer. Some choose to believe evolution, some choose to believe the Bible, some choose to believe the Koran, some choose simply to take occam's razor (some believe in an amalgamation, hybrid or all of the above). Many intelligent people have bought into ideas that many of us would consider absolutely insane. I've met people from all of these realms. And I've learned that theories on origin of the species, dogma, religion or relationships with "g(G)od(s)" have much less to do with overall intelligence, but rather some intangible that is simply inexplicable... for better or worse. But they're not "stupid." That's my whole point in this thread. 

 

[bearcat23]

It's That Dude - Agreed on all points. We can't know anything with absolute certainty. 
As stated, we can debate this ad nauseum, and get no closer. Some choose to believe evolution, some choose to believe the Bible, some choose to believe the Koran, some choose simply to take occam's razor (some believe in an amalgamation, hybrid or all of the above). Many intelligent people have bought into ideas that many of us would consider absolutely insane. I've met people from all of these realms. And I've learned that theories on origin of the species, dogma, religion or relationships with "g(G)od(s)" have much less to do with overall intelligence, but rather some intangible that is simply inexplicable... for better or worse. But they're not "stupid." That's my whole point in this thread. 

 

[decemberlove]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

How the Earth, moon and sun got here. How did the amoeba get here?  Dame Theory, please provide your response, that is not a "theory." 
The sun. The tide. O'reilly granted in the first video.  Those comments are answered through simple science, agreed. O'reilly's point in both is from a creation aspect, neither of those issues are a focal point and were, I agree, poor form. 

A theory is a model used to describe phenomena. Saying God did it is a refusal to accept information but also a resort to ignorance. Its okay to say "I dont know." To say God did it means you KNOW God did it...which is in essence false. 
You want my response? Look up abiogenesis and its surrounding theories. I can point you to information, I can't take the time to break it down for you. 

 To believe in a higher being that explains creation is to have faith, and with you attacking all forms of this faith is disrespect and ignorance on your part.  



If you listened closely instead of rushing to post these videos on NT, trying to downplay Christianity, you would realize that Bill O'Reilly's ultimate point is that he doesn't believe in all creation being a "mistake."

There are many other examples that support his arguments e.g. the Earth's axis, its distance and relation to the sun and moon, etc.

Another common misconception.



If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect, by all means, I hope it will. Its time people saw @+%$ for what it really was. You all are animals with encephalized forebrains that want to feel special when you die and when unfortunate things happen to you.




Funny you think I "rushed to NT to post videos." False. Your attempt at being witty fails you. Bill doesn't think creation is a mistake... Its not about it being a "mistake" its the fact that it happened. Thats it. It is the spontaneous origin of life and all current evidence leads to this. I swear if we find life in its SMALLEST cellular form on another planet everyone will @+%$ their pants. 




You might say the conditions on earth are just right for life. How do you know that? Are you aware of adaptation? In so much as life seems to be "right" for this world, its very possible that the chance for spontaneous creation of life is just as rare. Why do you have to beat the odds all of the time? I hope its not too much to think that yes, the world as we know it could have been by just as much chance that it wasn't. 

 I don't know if you're classifying yourself in this "animal" category or your elitist view is getting the best of you, but you're just sounding like a damn fool.  I had to dumb myself down a
 notch in order to figure out what "If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect" meant. Mistake was a poor choice of words and it should have been replaced with "luck."  You're not 

looking at the bigger picture...what caused this "spontaneous origin of life?"  You might find it absurd that Bill believes in a Creator but I'm sure it's just as radical to believe in a big bang.
How do I know conditions are just right for life?

Because there is life on Earth and it will continue to be that way as long as these conditions are stable.  

You must not have taken science classes in school because the first thing I learned in all of my science classes is that theory =/= fact.  The Evolution Theory isn't FACT it's a theory and can 

be falsified if further evidence shows it. 

 

[decemberlove]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

How the Earth, moon and sun got here. How did the amoeba get here?  Dame Theory, please provide your response, that is not a "theory." 
The sun. The tide. O'reilly granted in the first video.  Those comments are answered through simple science, agreed. O'reilly's point in both is from a creation aspect, neither of those issues are a focal point and were, I agree, poor form. 

A theory is a model used to describe phenomena. Saying God did it is a refusal to accept information but also a resort to ignorance. Its okay to say "I dont know." To say God did it means you KNOW God did it...which is in essence false. 
You want my response? Look up abiogenesis and its surrounding theories. I can point you to information, I can't take the time to break it down for you. 

 To believe in a higher being that explains creation is to have faith, and with you attacking all forms of this faith is disrespect and ignorance on your part.  



If you listened closely instead of rushing to post these videos on NT, trying to downplay Christianity, you would realize that Bill O'Reilly's ultimate point is that he doesn't believe in all creation being a "mistake."

There are many other examples that support his arguments e.g. the Earth's axis, its distance and relation to the sun and moon, etc.

Another common misconception.



If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect, by all means, I hope it will. Its time people saw @+%$ for what it really was. You all are animals with encephalized forebrains that want to feel special when you die and when unfortunate things happen to you.




Funny you think I "rushed to NT to post videos." False. Your attempt at being witty fails you. Bill doesn't think creation is a mistake... Its not about it being a "mistake" its the fact that it happened. Thats it. It is the spontaneous origin of life and all current evidence leads to this. I swear if we find life in its SMALLEST cellular form on another planet everyone will @+%$ their pants. 




You might say the conditions on earth are just right for life. How do you know that? Are you aware of adaptation? In so much as life seems to be "right" for this world, its very possible that the chance for spontaneous creation of life is just as rare. Why do you have to beat the odds all of the time? I hope its not too much to think that yes, the world as we know it could have been by just as much chance that it wasn't. 

 I don't know if you're classifying yourself in this "animal" category or your elitist view is getting the best of you, but you're just sounding like a damn fool.  I had to dumb myself down a
 notch in order to figure out what "If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect" meant. Mistake was a poor choice of words and it should have been replaced with "luck."  You're not 

looking at the bigger picture...what caused this "spontaneous origin of life?"  You might find it absurd that Bill believes in a Creator but I'm sure it's just as radical to believe in a big bang.
How do I know conditions are just right for life?

Because there is life on Earth and it will continue to be that way as long as these conditions are stable.  

You must not have taken science classes in school because the first thing I learned in all of my science classes is that theory =/= fact.  The Evolution Theory isn't FACT it's a theory and can 

be falsified if further evidence shows it. 

 

[bearcat23]

Dame Theory - Good debate.  We could go ad nauseum. But after this I'm done, as seen in my above post. 
A. Micro-evolution. It's really that simple. Some people would point to it as a simple adaptation. Some people would say it's a sign of macro-evolution. Different camps.  

B. I'm very familiar with abiogensis. Just as in micro evolution. It's too small. See irreducible complexity. Exact same concept. 

The roof sample size is larger than any size we have for the origin of the universe. . . So by your own reasoning, our sample size is too small right? The same would actually prove true for 300 people. Lets say 299 die. The 300th doesn't. What happens to 301? In the world of Darwinism, see the percentage of beneficial mutations. 

It's a wonderful world we live in. Full of possibilities. 

Dame Theory - Much respect on keeping things cordial. Don't see it too much here anymore. I'm off to bed. Thanks

 

[bearcat23]

Dame Theory - Good debate.  We could go ad nauseum. But after this I'm done, as seen in my above post. 
A. Micro-evolution. It's really that simple. Some people would point to it as a simple adaptation. Some people would say it's a sign of macro-evolution. Different camps.  

B. I'm very familiar with abiogensis. Just as in micro evolution. It's too small. See irreducible complexity. Exact same concept. 

The roof sample size is larger than any size we have for the origin of the universe. . . So by your own reasoning, our sample size is too small right? The same would actually prove true for 300 people. Lets say 299 die. The 300th doesn't. What happens to 301? In the world of Darwinism, see the percentage of beneficial mutations. 

It's a wonderful world we live in. Full of possibilities. 

Dame Theory - Much respect on keeping things cordial. Don't see it too much here anymore. I'm off to bed. Thanks

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

How the Earth, moon and sun got here. How did the amoeba get here?  Dame Theory, please provide your response, that is not a "theory." 
The sun. The tide. O'reilly granted in the first video.  Those comments are answered through simple science, agreed. O'reilly's point in both is from a creation aspect, neither of those issues are a focal point and were, I agree, poor form. 

A theory is a model used to describe phenomena. Saying God did it is a refusal to accept information but also a resort to ignorance. Its okay to say "I dont know." To say God did it means you KNOW God did it...which is in essence false. 
You want my response? Look up abiogenesis and its surrounding theories. I can point you to information, I can't take the time to break it down for you. 

 To believe in a higher being that explains creation is to have faith, and with you attacking all forms of this faith is disrespect and ignorance on your part.  



If you listened closely instead of rushing to post these videos on NT, trying to downplay Christianity, you would realize that Bill O'Reilly's ultimate point is that he doesn't believe in all creation being a "mistake."

There are many other examples that support his arguments e.g. the Earth's axis, its distance and relation to the sun and moon, etc.

Another common misconception.



If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect, by all means, I hope it will. Its time people saw @+%$ for what it really was. You all are animals with encephalized forebrains that want to feel special when you die and when unfortunate things happen to you.




Funny you think I "rushed to NT to post videos." False. Your attempt at being witty fails you. Bill doesn't think creation is a mistake... Its not about it being a "mistake" its the fact that it happened. Thats it. It is the spontaneous origin of life and all current evidence leads to this. I swear if we find life in its SMALLEST cellular form on another planet everyone will @+%$ their pants. 




You might say the conditions on earth are just right for life. How do you know that? Are you aware of adaptation? In so much as life seems to be "right" for this world, its very possible that the chance for spontaneous creation of life is just as rare. Why do you have to beat the odds all of the time? I hope its not too much to think that yes, the world as we know it could have been by just as much chance that it wasn't. 

 I don't know if you're classifying yourself in this "animal" category or your elitist view is getting the best of you, but you're just sounding like a damn fool.  I had to dumb myself down a
 notch in order to figure out what "If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect" meant. Mistake was a poor choice of words and it should have been replaced with "luck."  You're not 

looking at the bigger picture...what caused this "spontaneous origin of life?"  You might find it absurd that Bill believes in a Creator but I'm sure it's just as radical to believe in a big bang.
How do I know conditions are just right for life?

Because there is life on Earth and it will continue to be that way as long as these conditions are stable.  

You must not have taken science classes in school because the first thing I learned in all of my science classes is that theory =/= fact.  The Evolution Theory isn't FACT it's a theory and can 

be falsified if further evidence shows it. 

Everything went over your head. Belief in a higher power is sponsored by those things I wrote in Red. 

The Big Bang has evidence. 

Many terms in science have the term "theory" attached to it and yet are replicable to an extent that they are facts. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by DecemberLove

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

How the Earth, moon and sun got here. How did the amoeba get here?  Dame Theory, please provide your response, that is not a "theory." 
The sun. The tide. O'reilly granted in the first video.  Those comments are answered through simple science, agreed. O'reilly's point in both is from a creation aspect, neither of those issues are a focal point and were, I agree, poor form. 

A theory is a model used to describe phenomena. Saying God did it is a refusal to accept information but also a resort to ignorance. Its okay to say "I dont know." To say God did it means you KNOW God did it...which is in essence false. 
You want my response? Look up abiogenesis and its surrounding theories. I can point you to information, I can't take the time to break it down for you. 

 To believe in a higher being that explains creation is to have faith, and with you attacking all forms of this faith is disrespect and ignorance on your part.  



If you listened closely instead of rushing to post these videos on NT, trying to downplay Christianity, you would realize that Bill O'Reilly's ultimate point is that he doesn't believe in all creation being a "mistake."

There are many other examples that support his arguments e.g. the Earth's axis, its distance and relation to the sun and moon, etc.

Another common misconception.



If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect, by all means, I hope it will. Its time people saw @+%$ for what it really was. You all are animals with encephalized forebrains that want to feel special when you die and when unfortunate things happen to you.




Funny you think I "rushed to NT to post videos." False. Your attempt at being witty fails you. Bill doesn't think creation is a mistake... Its not about it being a "mistake" its the fact that it happened. Thats it. It is the spontaneous origin of life and all current evidence leads to this. I swear if we find life in its SMALLEST cellular form on another planet everyone will @+%$ their pants. 




You might say the conditions on earth are just right for life. How do you know that? Are you aware of adaptation? In so much as life seems to be "right" for this world, its very possible that the chance for spontaneous creation of life is just as rare. Why do you have to beat the odds all of the time? I hope its not too much to think that yes, the world as we know it could have been by just as much chance that it wasn't. 

 I don't know if you're classifying yourself in this "animal" category or your elitist view is getting the best of you, but you're just sounding like a damn fool.  I had to dumb myself down a
 notch in order to figure out what "If faith in a higher power will be seen as disrespect" meant. Mistake was a poor choice of words and it should have been replaced with "luck."  You're not 

looking at the bigger picture...what caused this "spontaneous origin of life?"  You might find it absurd that Bill believes in a Creator but I'm sure it's just as radical to believe in a big bang.
How do I know conditions are just right for life?

Because there is life on Earth and it will continue to be that way as long as these conditions are stable.  

You must not have taken science classes in school because the first thing I learned in all of my science classes is that theory =/= fact.  The Evolution Theory isn't FACT it's a theory and can 

be falsified if further evidence shows it. 

Everything went over your head. Belief in a higher power is sponsored by those things I wrote in Red. 

The Big Bang has evidence. 

Many terms in science have the term "theory" attached to it and yet are replicable to an extent that they are facts. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

Dame Theory - Good debate.  We could go ad nauseum. But after this I'm done, as seen in my above post. 
A. Micro-evolution. It's really that simple. Some people would point to it as a simple adaptation. Some people would say it's a sign of macro-evolution. Different camps.  

B. I'm very familiar with abiogensis. Just as in micro evolution. It's too small. See irreducible complexity. Exact same concept. 

The roof sample size is larger than any size we have for the origin of the universe. . . So by your own reasoning, our sample size is too small right? The same would actually prove true for 300 people. Lets say 299 die. The 300th doesn't. What happens to 301? In the world of Darwinism, see the percentage of beneficial mutations. 

It's a wonderful world we live in. Full of possibilities. 

Dame Theory - Much respect on keeping things cordial. Don't see it too much here anymore. I'm off to bed. Thanks

Do you only lend credence to micro economics? Then you would have to do the same to macro economics. Adapation IS evolution in a sense. It just occurs over generations. 
We can't use percentages to PREDICT regarding evolution, we can only analyze what happens and draft models on this. Its what happens when we geneticists sit down with couples to see if their kid is going to be ******ed or have some congenital defect. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

Dame Theory - Good debate.  We could go ad nauseum. But after this I'm done, as seen in my above post. 
A. Micro-evolution. It's really that simple. Some people would point to it as a simple adaptation. Some people would say it's a sign of macro-evolution. Different camps.  

B. I'm very familiar with abiogensis. Just as in micro evolution. It's too small. See irreducible complexity. Exact same concept. 

The roof sample size is larger than any size we have for the origin of the universe. . . So by your own reasoning, our sample size is too small right? The same would actually prove true for 300 people. Lets say 299 die. The 300th doesn't. What happens to 301? In the world of Darwinism, see the percentage of beneficial mutations. 

It's a wonderful world we live in. Full of possibilities. 

Dame Theory - Much respect on keeping things cordial. Don't see it too much here anymore. I'm off to bed. Thanks

Do you only lend credence to micro economics? Then you would have to do the same to macro economics. Adapation IS evolution in a sense. It just occurs over generations. 
We can't use percentages to PREDICT regarding evolution, we can only analyze what happens and draft models on this. Its what happens when we geneticists sit down with couples to see if their kid is going to be ******ed or have some congenital defect. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

It's That Dude - Agreed on all points. We can't know anything with absolute certainty. 
As stated, we can debate this ad nauseum, and get no closer. Some choose to believe evolution, some choose to believe the Bible, some choose to believe the Koran, some choose simply to take occam's razor (some believe in an amalgamation, hybrid or all of the above). Many intelligent people have bought into ideas that many of us would consider absolutely insane. I've met people from all of these realms. And I've learned that theories on origin of the species, dogma, religion or relationships with "g(G)od(s)" have much less to do with overall intelligence, but rather some intangible that is simply inexplicable... for better or worse. But they're not "stupid." That's my whole point in this thread. 

....you... don't believe... in evolution...
you witness it.

The intangibles are very subjective. I lend credence to things that all can witness. Love, hurt, justice. Those things. Not spirits, the soul, or connections to higher powers via out of body experiences. Vague misinterpretations for complex chemical interactions in the body. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

It's That Dude - Agreed on all points. We can't know anything with absolute certainty. 
As stated, we can debate this ad nauseum, and get no closer. Some choose to believe evolution, some choose to believe the Bible, some choose to believe the Koran, some choose simply to take occam's razor (some believe in an amalgamation, hybrid or all of the above). Many intelligent people have bought into ideas that many of us would consider absolutely insane. I've met people from all of these realms. And I've learned that theories on origin of the species, dogma, religion or relationships with "g(G)od(s)" have much less to do with overall intelligence, but rather some intangible that is simply inexplicable... for better or worse. But they're not "stupid." That's my whole point in this thread. 

....you... don't believe... in evolution...
you witness it.

The intangibles are very subjective. I lend credence to things that all can witness. Love, hurt, justice. Those things. Not spirits, the soul, or connections to higher powers via out of body experiences. Vague misinterpretations for complex chemical interactions in the body. 

 

[bearcat23]

I promised to go to bed. Apologies. 
Remember when apple stock sucked. And then it spiked? And one day it may suck again. . . Macro, Micro, Macro. We cannot predict with certainty. . . Trends. Yes. But you have to realize that in the theory of Darwinism, we are dealing with Millions of years. If you can tell me what Apple will be worth in one million years, using either macro or micro economics you should could have a statue erected at Wharton tomorrow. 

There is no certainty. That's my point here. 

 

[bearcat23]

I promised to go to bed. Apologies. 
Remember when apple stock sucked. And then it spiked? And one day it may suck again. . . Macro, Micro, Macro. We cannot predict with certainty. . . Trends. Yes. But you have to realize that in the theory of Darwinism, we are dealing with Millions of years. If you can tell me what Apple will be worth in one million years, using either macro or micro economics you should could have a statue erected at Wharton tomorrow. 

There is no certainty. That's my point here. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

I promised to go to bed. Apologies. 
Remember when apple stock sucked. And then it spiked? And one day it may suck again. . . Macro, Micro, Macro. We cannot predict with certainty. . . Trends. Yes. But you have to realize that in the theory of Darwinism, we are dealing with Millions of years. If you can tell me what Apple will be worth in one million years, using either macro or micro economics you should could have a statue erected at Wharton tomorrow. 

There is no certainty. That's my point here. 

Evolution is witnessed. 
I'm not moving on that point. Because you can't witness it in EVERY realm (often due to the constraints of time) does not mean that it can not be certain.

You can't predict evolution. It is only witnessed. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

I promised to go to bed. Apologies. 
Remember when apple stock sucked. And then it spiked? And one day it may suck again. . . Macro, Micro, Macro. We cannot predict with certainty. . . Trends. Yes. But you have to realize that in the theory of Darwinism, we are dealing with Millions of years. If you can tell me what Apple will be worth in one million years, using either macro or micro economics you should could have a statue erected at Wharton tomorrow. 

There is no certainty. That's my point here. 

Evolution is witnessed. 
I'm not moving on that point. Because you can't witness it in EVERY realm (often due to the constraints of time) does not mean that it can not be certain.

You can't predict evolution. It is only witnessed.