http://mediamatters.org/items/200501210003
:lol :lol
How do these fucking loons still manage to pull in considerable cashola?
:lol :lol
How do these fucking loons still manage to pull in considerable cashola?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bill O'Reilly rocks:"Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin."
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
Screaming_Gremlin
My QB is a Dick and my coach is a Nutt
Wow... I really don't know what to say to this, except I agree with Incognito, why do people listen to this guy?
Outlaw Pro Mod
Member
"After the last election? Well..... let's just say I think his wacked twisted way of thinking might be more widespread than we thought.... "
The Faceless Master
Member
i think they should teach intelligent design or whatever they wanna call it...
not because i believe it, but because i believe that witholding information is against the principles of true science... it should be taught and shown for what it is and disassembled...
not because i believe it, but because i believe that witholding information is against the principles of true science... it should be taught and shown for what it is and disassembled...
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage said:
I agree
The science Teachers refused to read the paper to the kids because it would destroy there credibility I herd the principle had to read the message.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
hXc_thugg said:
Que?
Anyway, like Dubya, O'Reilly's descent from "he's not such a bad guy; he seems to be working out" to "WTF HE GOING TO SAY NEXT!?!?!?!" is frightening and worrisome.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Lil' Dice said:
He might actually like that given his recent settlement with that producer.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Lil' Dice said:
he'd probably enjoy it.
"Shut up! Just shut uuuuuhhhhhh oohh ooh uhhhhh" *Splooge!*
happyfunball
Member
Intelligent design ISN'T science. Simple as that. Retarded Christian wackos hate the idea of proving things. That's why they love that "faith" word, it totally absolves from ever having to prove anything.
way more
Member
Who is the limp-wristed, wishy-washy, fence-sitter that invented intelligent design? You either believe in evolution, creationism or you're undecided and don't know. Don't go inventing crap just because you don't want to look like an idiot when you declare the world has been around for only 5,000 years. It's part of accepting God, you believe in some crazy shit that can't be explained, its called faith and if you are truly a believer that should be good enough.
Fence sitting has NOTHING to do with it. Intelligent design was deliberately devised with the intention of teaching creationism without being accountable on the establishment clause of the first amendment, which has repeatedly smacked down fundamentalist christians' efforts before. If they can't blatantly teach religion in a science class, they're going to dress it up as "creation science" instead.mac said:
Actually you're right.
The people that follow o'reilly are worse than those that followed Hitler or Stalin, because unlike them, the people following o'reilly aren't living in a massively suppressed culture, where going against the dictator meant losing your lives or some such.
The people that follow o'reilly are worse than those that followed Hitler or Stalin, because unlike them, the people following o'reilly aren't living in a massively suppressed culture, where going against the dictator meant losing your lives or some such.
Zaptruder said:
haha, this is laughable. You ignore the fact that the majority of those who were "followers" (One who subscribes to the teachings or methods of another; an adherent) of each totalitarian dictator were NOT doing so simply out of a fear for their lives. People BELIEVED in Hitler and Stalin and LOVED them while ignoring, apologizing for, or actively participating in the fundamental inhumanity of their ideology and actions.
O'Reilly may be a blustering populist who appeals to people using broad generalizations and frothy rhetoric, he and his views are in no way comparable to those of Stalin or Hitler though. Making the WILLFUL following and participation of his "followers" nowhere equal to those of Stalin or Hitler. Not to mention the point that this argument is predicated on the ASSUMPTION that these views of O'Reilly are somehow wrong or bad, without anyone having actually disputed the O'Reilly argument in question...
Drensch said:
Compare: 1. To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken. 2. To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.
Drensch said:
happyfunball
Member
" without anyone having actually disputed the O'Reilly argument in question..."
Well what is his argument? That we should discuss God in a science class?
Science is about attempting to prove theories with facts and presenting those facts. God is about faith. The two obviously don't belong in the same classroom(not like discussions of God should be anywhere outside of religious studies in a public school anyway).
This whole idea of "intelligent design" just makes me sick as well. I believe the whole idea is that some things are too complicated for us to understand at the moment, so that proves God. Right? What a total load of pussy, defeatist, depressing bullshit that is. With that explanation of everything why would we even need science. Don't understand anything? Well, that's just God, don't worry about it. I would like to talk to the pussy scientists that believe in this shit because I'm sure they are all at Bob Jones University with zero funding.
Well what is his argument? That we should discuss God in a science class?
Science is about attempting to prove theories with facts and presenting those facts. God is about faith. The two obviously don't belong in the same classroom(not like discussions of God should be anywhere outside of religious studies in a public school anyway).
This whole idea of "intelligent design" just makes me sick as well. I believe the whole idea is that some things are too complicated for us to understand at the moment, so that proves God. Right? What a total load of pussy, defeatist, depressing bullshit that is. With that explanation of everything why would we even need science. Don't understand anything? Well, that's just God, don't worry about it. I would like to talk to the pussy scientists that believe in this shit because I'm sure they are all at Bob Jones University with zero funding.
Spike Spiegel
Member
...What do the kids think about intelligent design? Just wondering.
LOL! :lolhappyfunball said:
I'm sorry, but this was the funniest line in this thread. Creation science is a misnomer. I can't believe educators would fucking tolerate such nonsense. Either you're in the business of teaching kids the facts or you're not. I work at a Catholic School, but there's no way I'll feed those kids any of that bologna. It's evolution, and if you don't think so, then you're an idiot. The only way you can buy creation over evolution is if you're too stupid to understand it. Someone put it well on the BBC today. Evolution is a fact, the mechanisms that drive it (natural selection) are theories, but evolution is a fact. Creationism is faith. Seriously, is it the recent shift in political power the reason these wackos are being given credence now? Or is this just making a big deal out of something that has no chance anyway? PEACE.
Science should start using a different word since the same word in common English means something different. In science, "theory" has no connotation of validity. It's not used when the speaker has reservations regarding the subject, but rather a "theory" is an explanation or model(a "law" being a generalized observation). No matter how much we know for certain that microscopic objects make people sick, the germ theory of disease will never become more than a theory. You may already understand this, but there are countless people who do not.
Since when are posters who constantly talk out of their ass worth responding to?Uter said:
Anyway, maybe you should start with elaborating what assumptions are being made in evolutionary theory. I can only assume from that statement that you imply that ALL of it is a non-provable assumption.
Back to the Fox News thing, did anyone else see the Fifth Estate episode that got O'Reilly all riled up. It's scary how the america media has basically become Bush talking point central. The funniest moment came with that stupid bitch Coulter.
Coulter
parapharsing)( in that annoying voice)
"When did Canada become such wimps?"(or something to that effect)"I mean you guys sent troops to Vietnam."
Reporter: "Actually Canada never sent troops into Vietnam"
Coulter "Yes you did.
Reporter: "No"
Coulter: "No your wrong. Sure you did. Maybe when it was called French Indochina"
Reporter : "No. We sent troops to World War 2 of course, and Korea. But never Vietnam."
Coulter : "Well I don't think so. I'll have to get back to you on that."
(Of course she didn't) :lol
Edit: its on again today at seven o'clock pm on CBC Newsworld according to their site.
Coulter
parapharsing)( in that annoying voice) "When did Canada become such wimps?"(or something to that effect)"I mean you guys sent troops to Vietnam."
Reporter: "Actually Canada never sent troops into Vietnam"
Coulter "Yes you did.
Reporter: "No"
Coulter: "No your wrong. Sure you did. Maybe when it was called French Indochina"
Reporter : "No. We sent troops to World War 2 of course, and Korea. But never Vietnam."
Coulter : "Well I don't think so. I'll have to get back to you on that."
(Of course she didn't) :lol
Edit: its on again today at seven o'clock pm on CBC Newsworld according to their site.
Hitokage said:
This is directed at who exactly?
Hitokage said:
That non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred. Spontaneous generation occurred only once. That viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated. That the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa. That the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. That the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates. That within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals.
How is that for a start?...
happyfunball
Member
"That non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred. Spontaneous generation occurred only once. That viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated. That the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa. That the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. That the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates. That within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals.
How is that for a start?..."
Now I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I'll give this a shot.
1) I don't believe any scientist has used non-living material to generate life as of yet but I think there has been a good deal of progress in this area. And truly it all depends on what you consider "life" If you consider viruses to be living, then YES, scientists have created life out of non-living materials. If you are talking about more complicated organisms, ie. bacteria, then I don't believe that has been achieved yet but that is certainly not very far off.
2) I guess you are also arguing that all of these organisms are not interrelated? Unless you haven't studied organisms, then you may not know that all of these organisms have MANY things in common. Proteins, the machines which run our cells, are mostly VERY similar between organisms(ie yeast, mice, humans,..).
3) Now your third question about how certain species lead to more advanced species is very easy. The best evidence we have is the fossil record which is EXTREMELY convincing if you have an open mind. And yes, we even have fossils showing "subtle changes over time"(evolution) from apes to humans.
How is that for a start?..."
Now I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I'll give this a shot.
1) I don't believe any scientist has used non-living material to generate life as of yet but I think there has been a good deal of progress in this area. And truly it all depends on what you consider "life" If you consider viruses to be living, then YES, scientists have created life out of non-living materials. If you are talking about more complicated organisms, ie. bacteria, then I don't believe that has been achieved yet but that is certainly not very far off.
2) I guess you are also arguing that all of these organisms are not interrelated? Unless you haven't studied organisms, then you may not know that all of these organisms have MANY things in common. Proteins, the machines which run our cells, are mostly VERY similar between organisms(ie yeast, mice, humans,..).
3) Now your third question about how certain species lead to more advanced species is very easy. The best evidence we have is the fossil record which is EXTREMELY convincing if you have an open mind. And yes, we even have fossils showing "subtle changes over time"(evolution) from apes to humans.
it is a little bit of a misnomer to call the theory of evolution a fact. that's not really what duane was doing though. the key is that the theory of evolution is a supposition BASED on fact, whereas "intelligent design" "creationism", etc are all pure philosophy with little to no empirical reasoning.
that said, there are plenty of facts supporting the theory of evolution.
that said, there are plenty of facts supporting the theory of evolution.
The term for life arising out of non living matter is abiogensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked