You gotta check this stupid woman out.

Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
I'm pretty sure her IQ would test out normal. Having faith doesn't make you stupid. Being stupid makes you stupid. I get tired of these threads that toss the 'stupid' blanket on people of faith.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
I'm pretty sure her IQ would test out normal. Having faith doesn't make you stupid. Being stupid makes you stupid. I get tired of these threads that toss the 'stupid' blanket on people of faith.

The problem is that it's ok to be stupid and a bigot as long as you believe in the big magical guy in the sky.
 

OinkBoink

Senior member
Nov 25, 2003
700
0
71
I'm pretty sure her IQ would test out normal. Having faith doesn't make you stupid. Being stupid makes you stupid. I get tired of these threads that toss the 'stupid' blanket on people of faith.

I'm not calling her stupid because she's a person of faith.I'm calling her so because all his answers just seem to bounce off her and she can't respond to any of his questions properly.So yeah,she's stupid 'cause she's stupid.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
I'm pretty sure her IQ would test out normal. Having faith doesn't make you stupid. Being stupid makes you stupid. I get tired of these threads that toss the 'stupid' blanket on people of faith.

The video is about her being a creationist, not just "of faith". Creationists are the cream of the crop of stupidity.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,409
39
91
Stupid interview. Scratch that, stupid pointless arguing.

and lol @ them standing at the corner of an office arguing for an hour while they both desperately trying to maintain their cool.

I wouldn't necessarily call her stupid either. Ignorant? Yes. Her beliefs probably has some pragmatism in making her skilled in other areas.
 
Last edited:

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
The problem is that it's ok to be stupid and a bigot as long as you believe in the big magical guy in the sky.
You should really consider accepting the Gospel of Elvis. Elvisology has been scientifically proven to be at least 83% more legitimate than the next leading religion.
 

PlasmaBomb

Lifer
Nov 19, 2004
11,636
2
81
This video contains content from Channel 4, who has decided to block it in your country.

Wat? Channel 4 is actually in the UK :|
 

Lean L

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2009
3,685
0
0
What's so stupid about her? It wasn't even faith. Neither of them was really qualified to make a definitive statement on evolution. Science has been proven and disproven many many times over the course of history. The fact is, using the scientific method, you would not even be able to prove that the world we live in is not a fantasy.

The most definitive way to prove it either way would be to observe it actually happen.... in which case there would be no way to emulate the environments in a lab....

Even things like gravity are hard to prove definitively. We have come up with consistent results, so we can say that for our purposes that it is true.
 
Last edited:

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
What's so stupid about her?
She doesn't realize that evolution is a fact.

It wasn't even faith. Neither of them was really qualified to make a definitive statement on evolution.
Dawkin's most certainly is.

Science has been proven and disproven many many times over the course of history. The fact is, using the scientific method, you would not even be able to prove that the world we live in is not a fantasy.
Science doesn't deal with proof. "Proof" is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with evidence and testable hypotheses.

The most definitive way to prove it either way would be to observe it actually happen.... in which case there would be no way to emulate the environments in a lab....
We do observe evolution, in laboratories and out in the world.

Even things like gravity are hard to prove definitively. We have come up with consistent results, so we can say that for our purposes that it is true.

Your username is fitting.
 

Lean L

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2009
3,685
0
0
She doesn't realize that evolution is a fact.


Dawkin's most certainly is.


Science doesn't deal with proof. "Proof" is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with evidence and testable hypotheses.


We do observe evolution, in laboratories and out in the world.



Your username is fitting.

Darwin made theories based on observations. They would still have to be proven as without documented specimen, they are only assumptions.

Evolution in labs is very much limited to the same species, which supports the concept of fitness instead of evolution.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,550
5,597
146
I got to the part where she is saying "you closed mindedness is a really good example of censorship...." and I censored her.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,865
105
106
What's so stupid about her? It wasn't even faith. Neither of them was really qualified to make a definitive statement on evolution. Science has been proven and disproven many many times over the course of history. The fact is, using the scientific method, you would not even be able to prove that the world we live in is not a fantasy.

The most definitive way to prove it either way would be to observe it actually happen.... in which case there would be no way to emulate the environments in a lab....

Even things like gravity are hard to prove definitively. We have come up with consistent results, so we can say that for our purposes that it is true.

Basically everything you said is completley idiotic. Evolution has been proven without any question through the fossil record. And gravity has been proven far beyond theoretics. Have you read much physics? If not, you should refrain from making such assumptions.
 

Lean L

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2009
3,685
0
0
Basically everything you said is completley idiotic. Evolution has been proven without any question through the fossil record. And gravity has been proven far beyond theoretics. Have you read much physics? If not, you should refrain from making such assumptions.

And what you said is somehow not idiotic faith? See "without question", nothing in science is without question. There are missing links in the fossil record. The same fossil records that neither of us has actually seen. I keep an open mind that all of this could still be proven either way in the future, although I think evolution is the better theory atm. Gravity is law because we have no ways of testing anti gravity. The Universal gravitational constant is constantly changing. Newton himself was not completely sure of his work at the time since all he could conclude was that gravity has and will always be there. I.e. there's no interaction time between masses.

Is physics just a blanket term for what you don't understand? See the genius behind science is that it allows you to witness ideas for yourself in some way. You have effectively taken the yolk from the egg.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,902
2
76
ugh.... dawkins just didn't seem to have very impressive debating skills there to me, and I'm agnostic.

edit: and I can't stand her phony smile.