Is It Okay To Be Stupid - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is It Okay To Be Stupid

Yes, It is okay to be stupid
18
46%
No, It is not okay to be stupid
13
33%
Other
8
21%
#14865148
No, Hindsite, you did not learn scientific method, or you would not be dismissing Evolution. You did NOT learn "science" as you so ignorantly put it. You learned to dismiss science in favour of religion.

Chemistry, Biology, etc. are not things you learn in sunday school, either.
#14865155
Godstud wrote:No, Hindsite, you did not learn scientific method, or you would not be dismissing Evolution. You did NOT learn "science" as you so ignorantly put it. You learned to dismiss science in favour of religion.

Chemistry, Biology, etc. are not things you learn in sunday school, either.

I don't dismiss real science, only so-called science, like the religion of evolution. I learned Physics, Chemistry, and biology in high school and college. However, the theory of evolution does not agree with the theory of creation in the Holy Bible. So it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is the so-called science that the Holy Bible warns believers about. Praise the Lord.
#14865157
Hindsite wrote:So it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is the so-called science that the Holy Bible warns believers about.
The Bible doesn't mention anything about science, because it wasn't around when The Bible was written, so that means you're making this bullshit up.

Evolution isn't about dismissing The Bible, but dumb shits who are ignorant of what science is, like to argue that it is. Then in an attempt to make themselves appear smart, they say it's "just a theory", and make themselves look even more stupid because they don't understand scientific theory, let alone the Method.

Evolution follows the scientific method. You're simply wrong(stupid?), and will not admit it.
#14865171
Godstud wrote:The Bible doesn't mention anything about science, because it wasn't around when The Bible was written, so that means you're making this bullshit up.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

(1 Timothy 6:20 KJV)

Evolution is about what happened in the past. Science is about what can be tested in the present according to the scientific method. A theory is something that is believed to be true. A law of science is something that has been proven to be true.

scientific method definition:

An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made.
#14865188
It's not OK to be stupid, because you won't accept facts.

You can read further as I only highlighted the evidence, and the details are in the articles.

8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real
Discovering DNA
Finding Transitional Fossils
Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
Identifying Vestigial Traits
Identifying Imperfect Characteristics
Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales
Simulating Evolution on Computers
https://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-di ... 1729902558

Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
Common Traits. Common Ancestor.
We See Species Changing Over Time
The Remnants of Past Generations
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces- ... evolution/

Of course, if you can't, or won't, read anything about why it's evidence, then nothing will ever convince you of anything, as you're being willfully resistant to facts, and evidence. That would be truly sad.
#14865198
Godstud wrote:It's not OK to be stupid, because you won't accept facts.

You can read further as I only highlighted the evidence, and the details are in the articles.

8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real
Discovering DNA
Finding Transitional Fossils
Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
Identifying Vestigial Traits
Identifying Imperfect Characteristics
Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales
Simulating Evolution on Computers
https://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-di ... 1729902558

Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
Common Traits. Common Ancestor.
We See Species Changing Over Time
The Remnants of Past Generations
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces- ... evolution/

Of course, if you can't, or won't, read anything about why it's evidence, then nothing will ever convince you of anything, as you're being willfully resistant to facts, and evidence. That would be truly sad.

Actually, the evidence all points to a common designer, the God of the Holy Bible as described in Genesis chapter one. DNA requires a creator, it could never have just magically appeared. Since DNA contains the program for the creature, it must have a programmer, just as any computer program does. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah
#14865205
@Hindsite I'm going to talk to you now as if you are the logical reasonable person that you likely are, when not on Pofo.

Look, you can say God made the rules and made Evolution, if that makes you feel better. No one's figured out how everything was originally created, but there are scientific facts, and Evolution is one of them.

Science does not seek to dispute the existence of God. It only seeks to figure out how things work. If you want to say that God made the universe, that's OK, since science isn't trying to do that, as there's no evidence pointing to it, and there might never be.

Most scientists are behind the science of Evolution, and most of those scientists are religious people. The two do NOT conflict. You can be a devout Christian AND support Evolution. Darwin did, as he was a Christian.

If you want to say that God made DNA, then knock yourself out! Scientists are trying to figure out how it all works, not how it came into existence in the first place. There are no theories that would hold water, in that regard.

Science seeks to understand how the universe works, not what our place is in it. Any science that tries to disprove God, isn't science. You could not find evidence to support such a hypothesis. That's the realm of philosophy, where science dare not tread.

Do you understand?
#14865229
Godstud wrote:What the fuck does that have to do with the topic... unless you are assuming we're talking about your idiotic President. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry, that's you reading too much into it.! :knife:


apparently I was correct
#14865239
Hindsite wrote:I don't dismiss real science, only so-called science, like the religion of evolution. I learned Physics, Chemistry, and biology in high school and college. However, the theory of evolution does not agree with the theory of creation in the Holy Bible. So it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is the so-called science that the Holy Bible warns believers about. Praise the Lord.


Actually you do dismiss science.

Science says that simple explanations are preferred to more complex ones when they are equal in everything else. You want to prefer the theory of creation. Ok. There is no such theory in the Book as the Bible has no scientific theories in it. The theory of creation was formulated in XIX century based on what's written in Bible by minds trying to explain the differences between the Holy Scripture and scientific facts. The theory of evolution gives simple explanation of why all species are different from each other and gives predictions about what we will find if digging for remains of living creatures. The theory of creation gives even simpler explanation.

Except it isn't. The theory of creation doesn't only explain why species are different, it also needs to explain why it's correct and still the world looks like if the theory of evolution was correct. It not only makes God responsible for creating different species but also for putting fossils in the soil in the correct order so it looked like organisms were evolving (when they actually weren't), and it also needs Devil (personally or as essence) to explain the data proving the existence of Evolution (like experiments over E. Coli).

So while theories are equal in the sense we don't really know what was there 6,000 years ago: evolving species or some omnipotent being creating everything from scratch, the theory of evolution is simple and self-independent while the theory of creation is not only complex: it fully includes the theory of evolutions. It's not speaking that the theory of evolution can be experimentally proven: it makes predictions and if the data will be different from what it predicts it will mean the end of the theory of evolution. The theory of creation predicts nothing but raises in complexity when opposing facts are presented: it can explain everything from mammoths to why I forgot to brush teeth today and therefore gives us no real information. The clock that always shows "6:32PM" is actually useless. So the theory of creation being significantly (dozens, hundreds and thousands times) more complex than the theory of evolution also fails the Popper test for difference between scientific and non-scientific theories.

Therefore the man who agrees with science must agree with the theory of evolution being preferable over the theory of creation if it would be scientific theory. But it isn't, so it's even not the choice. While the theory of evolution had other competing scientific theories explaining everything it explains in a scientific way, they were refuted because their predictions were wrong. The theory of evolution of Charles Darwin was actually refuted too because it included fluids different organs produce, and researches found nothing of these in organisms. Right now the only scientific theory that isn't refuted is the modern theory of evolution that is the child of the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin and genetics.

Therefore, you do something opposite to what science and common sense advice. Therefore you dismiss science.
#14865241
Finfinder wrote:apparently I was correct
:lol: No, but assuming a thread about stupidity is about the US President, would be a fine assumption, since you must be agreeing.
#14865250
Godstud wrote::lol: No, but assuming a thread about stupidity is about the US President, would be a fine assumption, since you must be agreeing.


You taking this thread seriously.......,,,, is stupid :lol:

Just about every thread is some six degrees of Trump and its hilarious how much space that guys occupies in peoples heads.
#14865291
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite I'm going to talk to you now as if you are the logical reasonable person that you likely are, when not on Pofo.

Look, you can say God made the rules and made Evolution, if that makes you feel better. No one's figured out how everything was originally created, but there are scientific facts, and Evolution is one of them.

Science does not seek to dispute the existence of God. It only seeks to figure out how things work. If you want to say that God made the universe, that's OK, since science isn't trying to do that, as there's no evidence pointing to it, and there might never be.

Most scientists are behind the science of Evolution, and most of those scientists are religious people. The two do NOT conflict. You can be a devout Christian AND support Evolution. Darwin did, as he was a Christian.

If you want to say that God made DNA, then knock yourself out! Scientists are trying to figure out how it all works, not how it came into existence in the first place. There are no theories that would hold water, in that regard.

Science seeks to understand how the universe works, not what our place is in it. Any science that tries to disprove God, isn't science. You could not find evidence to support such a hypothesis. That's the realm of philosophy, where science dare not tread.

Do you understand?

I understand that Darwin and modern evolutionists went too far. They should have stopped with changes within species. There are big dogs and little dogs because of breeding. But a dog does not evolve into a cat or horse, nor does a monkey evolve into a man. Man was created by God.

The Genesis account of creation is the simplest to me. Children can easily understand it. To understand the theory of evolution one has to be taught it for years and it is still too complex for them to understand after a college education.

The Genesis account of creation explains that all life forms reproduce after their own kind. That means you can count on a dog reproducing dogs and not cats or some other animal. That is the explanation of why humans always reproduce humans and not monkeys.

The worldwide flood of Genesis is the simple explanation of why some sea animal fossils are found on mountains and why fossils of dead animals are found buried under sedimentary layers over the earth.

Yes, you could say that the Genesis account of creation includes micro-evolution (changes within a kind of creature) but it disputes the idea that this continued for billions of year to include macro-evolution (changes from one kind of creature to others). In fact, even modern science has yet to prove a creature has changed from one kind to another kind. The idea of lining of fossils up in a certain order proves only those are fossils from different dead creatures.

The Genesis account of creation also explains that God created time and the seasons of the year and made the relation between the sun, moon, and earth as a time piece for all times. We made other ways of telling time by using the things God created. For example the sundial, hour glass, watches, and clocks, crystal time pieces, etc. So man was created in the image of God so we have the ability to create and make things too. HalleluYah.

I do not dismiss the science that produced radio, television, computers, microwave ovens, automobiles, airplanes, guns, atomic bomb, or nuclear power plants to provide electricity. Many men of science do not agree with evolution because evolution is a stupid theory and like a fairy tale in which a frog can turn into a prince by adding enough time. Ridiculous.
#14865337
Hindsite wrote:nor does a monkey evolve into a man.
A monkey did not evolve into a man. A similar primate DID. This is a common argument of people who really don't understand Evolution.

That doesn't mean that your God didn't make man, does it? Why do you have to tear apart the mysteries of the Universe just so it fits nicely into that little book that men with no concept of science wrote 2000 years ago? I am sure they didn't have any concept of DNA, or computers, either.

Hindsite wrote:The Genesis account of creation is the simplest to me. Children can easily understand it. To understand the theory of evolution one has to be taught it for years and it is still too complex for them to understand after a college education.
Simplest to you is the only way it can be? You can grasp Evolution without a degree in science. I do.

Hindsite wrote:Many men of science do not agree with evolution because evolution is a stupid theory and like a fairy tale in which a frog can turn into a prince by adding enough time. Ridiculous.
That's incorrect. Most men of science(actual scientists with degrees related to the subject, and not philosophy degrees) agree with the theory of Evolution. There's a consensus for a reason.

There's overwhelming evidence to support this consensus.

There is no Evolution of a "frog turning into a prince", and your answers demonstrate clearly that you do not have a firm grasp of what the science is. That's OK, but you don't have to demonize something simply because you don't understand it.

Read some more on what Evolution is, please. You have a very strange view on it. Science doesn't seek to dismiss religion. That's something you're seeing which isn't there.

PS:
Again, just because there's Evolution does not mean that your God didn't make man(If that's what you want to believe). Most scientists believe in God and can still understand/agree with the science on Evolution.
#14865373
Godstud wrote:A monkey did not evolve into a man. A similar primate DID. This is a common argument of people who really don't understand Evolution.

Man was created as man in the beginning, not as a similar primate. Is this similar primate a chimpanzee? I bet you don't know. Believe me, evolutionist made this fairy tale up.

Darwin did not have any concept of DNA or the complexity of a single biological cell. Yet evolutionist would rather believe him than the creator God.

Godstud wrote:Most men of science(actual scientists with degrees related to the subject, and not philosophy degrees) agree with the theory of Evolution. There's a consensus for a reason.

Didn't you know that real science is not decided by consensus?

Godstud wrote:There is no Evolution of a "frog turning into a prince", and your answers demonstrate clearly that you do not have a firm grasp of what the science is. That's OK, but you don't have to demonize something simply because you don't understand it.

Yes, I know, that is why I gave that example rather than a fish to man evolution. It emphasizes the stupidity of the theory of evolution. Man was created on dry land. Man did not evolve from a creature from the sea or from an ape-like creature that evolved from a sea creature like a whale. That is all evolution nonsense.

Godstud wrote:Read some more on what Evolution is, please. You have a very strange view on it. Science doesn't seek to dismiss religion. That's something you're seeing which isn't there.

PS:
Again, just because there's Evolution does not mean that your God didn't make man(If that's what you want to believe). Most scientists believe in God and can still understand/agree with the science on Evolution.

I have read enough on the theory of evolution to know it has many flaws. I can agree with the so-called micro-evolution (changes within a creature kind because of breeding and environment), but that is far as I can go. Creation by the God of the Holy Bible and the theory of evolution over billions of years can not exist in harmony.
#14865401
Man was created as man in the beginning, not as a similar primate. Is this similar primate a chimpanzee? I bet you don't know. Believe me, evolutionist made this fairy tale up.

Both humans and chimpanzees are descended from a primate known as Proconsul.

Darwin did not have any concept of DNA or the complexity of a single biological cell. Yet evolutionist would rather believe him than the creator God.

The fact that evolution occurs can be deduced (and was deduced) even without knowing the precise mechanism underlying it, which happens to be random mutations in DNA during reproduction.

Didn't you know that real science is not decided by consensus?

Actually, it is.

Yes, I know, that is why I gave that example rather than a fish to man evolution. It emphasizes the stupidity of the theory of evolution. Man was created on dry land. Man did not evolve from a creature from the sea or from an ape-like creature that evolved from a sea creature like a whale. That is all evolution nonsense.

Actually, humans (and in fact all vertebrates) are descended from fish. Cladistically speaking, humans are merely highly evolved fish.

Creation by the God of the Holy Bible and the theory of evolution over billions of years can not exist in harmony.

That is correct.
#14865403
@Hindsite Nevermind. I can see that science is simply beyond you. Don't claim to have knowledge about Evolution, though. You have not a clue at how it works.
#14865416
I think what Hindsite is trying to tell is we have to distinguish science and psuedo science.

Evolution can fit well the existance of 'something that runs the universe'. That humans were created by the 'something' after the rest of the animals we know. You don't have to interprete it necessarily as creation out of nothing. The bible just tells that humans were formed.

Anyway, guessing what was 8 million years ago, is less accurate than actual science that tells me water boils at 100 c, depands on the exact altitude. There is a difference between the two types of science methods. And this is fine to argue about it.

We do see in this debate that when it comes to close interaction, we can't stand what we consider as stupidity, and practicaly we fight it.
#14865419
No, Evolution is solid science, and not pseudoscience. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and it's a consensus because so many scientists have done the science and come to the same conclusions, not simply because they agree blindly.

Pseudoscience is vaccine denial, and chemtrail bullshit.
#14865423
The skulls they have found is a scientific evidence. The theory explaining it, is less scientific. (Although I agree with their conclusion. )

How I see science:
Pure science- physics, chimestry, biology
lower level of science, trying to rationalize foundings: Geology, meteorology, pharmacology
psuedo science- based on statistics and no solid formula, large errors: Economy, medicine, social science, psychology. - These have no formulas at all. But are still trying to collect data and use some mathematics.
Not a science at all: Philosophy, religion. - These trying to explain things without any basic mathematical proof.

For me, it will be wierder to hear people arguing water do not boil at 100c, than people arguing that Asthma or eyesight can be cured, or who is sure when the rock was formed. Although the healthiest thing is the level of argues in physics when they doubt everything now, this is the best attitude :D
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 18

Harvey Weinstein's conviction, for alleged "r[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is pleasurable to see US university students st[…]

World War II Day by Day

April 27, Saturday More women to do German war w[…]

I think a Palestinian state has to be demilitariz[…]