Hey, Bill Maher! Why won't you debate evolution?

[MissileMan]

Baby - Creationism is LESS religious than is Darwinism. Evolution takes MOUNTAINS of faith - faith I can't in good concious allow for. Creationism makes perfect scientific sense. But you wouldn't know that because your fear of Christianity precludes your honest study of creationism.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

deep breath...

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

someone call 911 please...difficulty breathing...

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[dmp]

Hi! I'm a Creationophobe. I dunno why I'm afraid of Creationism; perhaps it stems from my fear of God? Fear of being 'wrong'? Fear of 'needing help?'

Fixed that for ya, lover.

 

[sitarro]

I guess we should first start with the definition of the word science. The word science, a lot like the word art, seems to have many different meanings. A garbage collector can seriously say that there is an art to collecting trash, in other words art is a meaningless, completely subjective word. After seeing the garbage that just sold as art by Piss-ccaso for 95,000,000 dollars, I have no doubt that the word art is meaningless.

The same is true for the word science. What qualifies as science? Is it something that can be proven with research? If something is proven in the present with current technology and later disproven by newer, better technology, was the original assumption science? How about the science that is payed for, the scientist that are paid to prove something for someone else with big pockets that will help the money guy sell more product... does that qualify as science?

What qualifications does one need to call themselves a scientist? Is it education levels? Is it the subject matter that one studies? If someone gets a doctorate in Theology, what do you call them. They research, they have a great amount of education, their life is devoted to the study of written history and educated assumptions are made.....How do they differ from scientist?

How does the frantic attempt to find proof that homosexuality is natural by a homosexual "scientist" that has just lost his lover to AIDS and is only trying to force the government to spend more money on it's cure qualify as science? That is how the original assumption of the "gay gene" came about 20 years ago, it is now assumed to be proven science.

How has "science" proven that humans evolved from a mass of cells in a soupy swamp? Have "scientists" proven this assertion all of the way through to today or do they actually just have FAITH that there assumption are correct from what technology they are using this week.

What it comes down to is, science is just as full of shit as anything else. As soon as you think something is definitively true, wait a week, it will be disproved .

Oh yea, by the way, I saw Maher on a show that was probably his first attempt at hollywood the other night. I was channel surfing when I saw this twat playing a photographer on a show that was considered fresh at the time....what was the show?Rosanne!!!!!!!

 

[Nienna]

We've bandied back & forth about which "theory" is more scientific, creationism or evolution. Would anyone care to point out something specific about Creationism that is scientifically unfeasible?

 

[MissileMan]

Fixed that for ya, lover.

I know...another one of those really tough questions you hate so much. Would you like me to ask some easy ones just for YOU? Don't want ya to feel left out or anything.

 

[dmp]

I know...another one of those really tough questions you hate so much. Would you like me to ask some easy ones just for YOU? Don't want ya to feel left out or anything.

Here's you: "Why is the sky is full of Apricots!"

here's me: "Okay - silly."

Here's you: "See?? Too tough a question for you, isnt it?? I win, I win, I win!"

You're a dork, MM.

 

[MissileMan]

Here's you: "Why is the sky is full of Apricots!"

here's me: "Okay - silly."

Here's you: "See?? Too tough a question for you, isnt it?? I win, I win, I win!"

You're a dork, MM.

If your boy can REALLY prove that we're here because of ID, why hasn't he? If he has the proof then the argument is over. What's he waiting for? He has the greatest breakthrough in the history of mankind and he's sitting on it until he can get Maher to debate the issue?

If you'd spend half the time it takes you to come up with your disingenuous parodies of our discussions to actually try to honestly answer the questions, you wouldn't appear quite so pathetic.

 

[Nienna]

I believe the guy misspoke when he said he could PROVE ID. However, Creationism has at least as much supporting evidence as evolution and the materialist cosmology.

 

[dmp]

If your boy can REALLY prove that we're here because of ID, why hasn't he? If he has the proof then the argument is over. What's he waiting for? He has the greatest breakthrough in the history of mankind and he's sitting on it until he can get Maher to debate the issue?

If you'd spend half the time it takes you to come up with your disingenuous parodies of our discussions to actually try to honestly answer the questions, you wouldn't appear quite so pathetic.

If YOUR boys can prove Evolution, why hasn't he? If they have the proof the argument is over. What're they waiting for? They have the greatest breakthrough in the history of mankind and they are sitting on it?

If you'd spend half the time it takes you to come up with your disingenuous parodies of our discussions to actually try to ask HONEST questions you wouldn't BE quite so pathetic.

 

[jillian]

If YOUR boys can prove Evolution, why hasn't he? If they have the proof the argument is over. What're they waiting for? They have the greatest breakthrough in the history of mankind and they are sitting on it?

If you'd spend half the time it takes you to come up with your disingenuous parodies of our discussions to actually try to ask HONEST questions you wouldn't BE quite so pathetic.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena. These hypotheses are required to have as logical consequences the prediction of additional, observable phenomena. Scientists design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers opportunity to verify results as well as to establish statistical measures of reliability. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Go put creationism through that scrutiny... then maybe the subject can be debated.

 

[Nienna]

Go put creationism through that scrutiny... then maybe the subject can be debated.

Anyone? ANyone? Anyone want to discuss something SPECIFIC about creationism that you believe is scientifically unfeasible?

 

[dmp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Go put creationism through that scrutiny... then maybe the subject can be debated.

Honey - for the record, Wikipedia isn't gospel - no pun intended.

Put "evolution" through Scientific Method, and THEN it may have validity.

 

[dmp]

Anyone? ANyone? Anyone want to discuss something SPECIFIC about creationism that you believe is scientifically unfeasible?

Go get 'em toots.

 

[Nienna]

Go get 'em toots.

Fishing, but not getting any bites.

 

[MissileMan]

If YOUR boys can prove Evolution, why hasn't he? If they have the proof the argument is over. What're they waiting for? They have the greatest breakthrough in the history of mankind and they are sitting on it?

If you'd spend half the time it takes you to come up with your disingenuous parodies of our discussions to actually try to ask HONEST questions you wouldn't BE quite so pathetic.

Noone in the real scientific community is so stupid as to claim they can prove the THEORY of evolution. They will argue that the THEORY of evolution fits the available evidence better than any other THEORY proposed thus far. Scientists understand that evolution is only a THEORY and continually strive for new information, whether it bolsters or detracts from the THEORY.

I'm anxiously awaiting your next childish response...I KNOW you won't let me down.

 

[MissileMan]

Anyone? ANyone? Anyone want to discuss something SPECIFIC about creationism that you believe is scientifically unfeasible?

You need look no further than the existence of the "creator".

 

[dmp]

Noone in the real scientific community is so stupid as to claim they can prove the THEORY of evolution. They will argue that the THEORY of evolution fits the available evidence better than any other THEORY proposed thus far. Scientists understand that evolution is only a THEORY and continually strive for new information, whether it bolsters or detracts from the THEORY.

I'm anxiously awaiting your next childish response...I KNOW you won't let me down.

So (suck my balls)what's (suck my balls)your point (suck my balls)? You (suck my balls)bitched (suck my balls)at (suck my balls) me(suck my balls) for (suck my balls)calling(suck my balls) Jillian(suck my balls) to (suck my balls)read(suck my balls)that(suck my balls) site, (suck my balls), and (suck my balls)give (suck my balls)Creationism(suck my balls)a (suck my balls)fair(suck my balls)shake. I (suck my balls)don't (suck my balls)need(suck my balls) to(suck my balls) prove(suck my balls)ANYTHING.(suck my balls) If(suck my balls) You(suck my balls) were(suck my balls) able (suck my balls)to (suck my balls)comprehend (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)well (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)bloviate, (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)might (suck my balls)understand (suck my balls)(gasp!) (suck my balls)the (suck my balls)POINT (suck my balls)of (suck my balls)this (suck my balls)thread. (suck my balls)Instead, (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)use (suck my balls)it (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)way (suck my balls)to (suck my balls)spout (suck my balls)Hate.

That childish enough, Fruitcake?

 

[MissileMan]

So (suck my balls)what's (suck my balls)your point (suck my balls)? You (suck my balls)bitched (suck my balls)at (suck my balls) me(suck my balls) for (suck my balls)calling(suck my balls) Jillian(suck my balls) to (suck my balls)read(suck my balls)that(suck my balls) site, (suck my balls), and (suck my balls)give (suck my balls)Creationism(suck my balls)a (suck my balls)fair(suck my balls)shake. I (suck my balls)don't (suck my balls)need(suck my balls) to(suck my balls) prove(suck my balls)ANYTHING.(suck my balls) If(suck my balls) You(suck my balls) were(suck my balls) able (suck my balls)to (suck my balls)comprehend (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)well (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)bloviate, (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)might (suck my balls)understand (suck my balls)(gasp!) (suck my balls)the (suck my balls)POINT (suck my balls)of (suck my balls)this (suck my balls)thread. (suck my balls)Instead, (suck my balls)you (suck my balls)use (suck my balls)it (suck my balls)as (suck my balls)way (suck my balls)to (suck my balls)spout (suck my balls)Hate.

That childish enough, Fruitcake?

I'd say it's totally indicative of the quality of a typical DMP post. If you don't understand your claim that a scientific theory is religious and a religious theory is scientific is ridiculous, you're beyond any hope of a rational argument.

 

[Dr Grump]

I believe the guy misspoke when he said he could PROVE ID. However, Creationism has at least as much supporting evidence as evolution and the materialist cosmology.

Sorry Mom...creationism only has faith. No scientific evidence whatsoever.

 

[Diuretic]

There was an attempt at bringing Creationism aka Intelligent Design here to Australia. When we stopped laughing they'd gone away again.

As was stated earlier in the thread and as is the position of the Catholic Church, the scientific theory of evolution and the idea of God as creator, are not mutually exclusive. Science doesn't try to disprove the existence of God, it just does its work.