and be the first to find out when debates become popular!
You are browsing through Science debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
I hate how modern day liberals see climate change as a closed argument and refuse to see the other side. In some states such as California, kids are indoctrinated that global warming is solely human caused. Now, for this debate, I am in no way saying that pollution and fossil fuels are good or should be continually used. I am merely bringing up the point that climate change is not nearly as understood as modern day liberal politicians claim. For example, how could one say that this could not be natural oscillation when the roman warming period was on average, hotter than it is today. The medieval warming period was on average as hot as it is today. So how can one say that our fossil fuels are making the earth hotter. I gaurentee you that the romans and knights were not burning fossil fuels like we are today. Another topic is that mars's atmosphere is 98% co2 although it is on average MUCH colder than the earth. The last topic I would like to bring up for round one is that if you chart co2 emissions with the average world temperature, it appears that there is no correlation.
Mankind's lifespan is constantly decreasing with time, along with bodily strength and intelligence -- not increasing (as the evo THEORY camp would have you believe):According to linguistic scholars, all modern languages devolved from more complex ancient languages. When God first revealed language, it was much, much more complex than any language in common modern use, because ancient mankind was much more intelligent than modern mankind is: Language was originally designed with intelligence by God, and it was given to mankind as a gift. The original language of mankind is called Sanskrit, and all of the other extant languages on the planet are derived from Sanskrit, either directly or indirectly. The Sanskrit language was mankind's original language, and it takes a total of 12 years to learn and speak fluently: It is presently known as a "dead language" because although it was once spoken all over the earth, by all human beings, it is currently spoken fluently by fewer than 100 people on the planet. This is because it is far too complex for the less intelligent modern mind to understand fully and speak fluently.Sanskrit is the most striking linguistic example of modern man's intelligence having devolved to lesser than that of ancient man. Other linguistic evidences include the other "dead languages," such as Latin and Hebrew, which are, to a lesser degree than Sanskrit, also very complex languages that are very difficult for modern man to understand fully and speak fluently.All of this linguistic evidence means that language has become less and less complex, over time, as mankind's intelligence level has decreased over time. This trend of diminishing intelligence, as evidenced by mankind's irrefutably diminishing linguistic aptitude, continues to this very day, with language skills gradually getting lesser and lesser with each new generation of humans. Not only that, but ancient societies with superior intelligence also produced superior technology to that of modern man. For example, modern man is unable to build structures such as giant stone pyramids, for lack of technological knowledge, but everyone knows that ancient cultures did indeed have that superior technological knowledge.Therefore the strange claims of Darwin were clearly false: Mankind is demonstrably getting less intelligent as time passes, and modern man clearly has less knowledge, less intelligence, and inferior language skills as well as inferior technology compared to those of ancient mankind.
_List Of Lies_1. I read, Until 1956, darwinians claimed Apes and Man had 24chromosomes.lol. That's smart because had they said Apes had 24 and men evolved into having 23, then it meant humans shouldn't be able to reproduce for losing a chromosome.Many atheist scientists papers' affirmed the lie until it was revealed in 1956.They said it was an understandable mistake!!!!??? for 30yrs?? They couldn't count 23 but counted 39 of dogs.2. Apes are 98% genetically identical to Man is another lie. "Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day. One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical. In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.) The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution." Nonetheless, they found that: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. *Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar. *There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes. *The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions. "Apes and man cannot add genes http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/https://www.thelocal.de/20090326/18267
Apologies to stephen hawkins whom i have insulted severally because atheists on this site misquoted him or rightly quoted him in wrong situations which led me to think he was equally as idiotic as they are. At least, he is agnostic and for sensible reasons......(my opinion can still change when exposed to some new knowledge worth my attention)Now to the main main
Is it any more rational to believe in the multiverse hypothesis than it is to believe in a god?(If you answer: *"No it's not, because..."*, it could mean you think it is equally, or less rational to believe in a multiverse than to believe in a god)It seems to me that a lot of arguments for the existence of a god would be entirely useless if the multiverse hypothesis is correct. For example, the fine tuning idea (that our universe is so "perfect" for life that a god must have been involved in making it that way). I also haven't heard of many alternatives to the multiverse hypothesis that could explain things like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, which means that the two (a god or a multiverse) could somewhat be substitutes. The problem with the multiverse hypothesis is just that - it is just a hypothesis, and an unfalsifiable one at that. This leads many to consider it unscientific, and on the same level as the god(s) hypothesis. Personally, I think it is only rational to withhold judgement on the multiverse hypothesis until evidence for its validity is provided. I'd like to hear what you all think.Keep it civil, etc, or I'll ban you.
Should we continue to do things like send out purposeful broadcasts into space with the aim of alerting intelligent aliens to our existence? Organisations like SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) constantly search for signs of intelligent aliens and send out messages into space.I could come at this from both sides...On one hand I don't think we should ignore our curiosity about aliens, it's in our blood. Some might also say that if we do find aliens, it could bring benefits to us if they are willing to share their knowledge with us.On the other hand, it's a risky business if the aliens decide we should be destroyed or enslaved or something. One could also argue it's a waste of time and money, and that there are more important issues.
Science is the purist method of finding truth in our word and yet a large portion of the general populous is completely ignorant of how it even works.They reject its discoveries and the people who practise it. Scientist are attacked by conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists, and even politicians. We live in an amazing age of technological advancements and ever increasing knowledge of the fundamental laws that govern our world. Yet, the farther we get as a society, the louder the voices of those trying to hold us back seem to get.Don't get me wrong. As a whole, society is throwing away false precepts of the past at an unprecedented rate. But there are still people of considerable number that just won't change their mind no matter how many ways you prove them wrong. Facts are rejected as lies. Well established theories are mocked and misrepresented to seem like they are nothing more than opinions, while at the same time pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen are propped up and respected.I would like to believe education is the answer but some groups have slipped into an almost militant stance. This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't try to propagate it and undermine all the progress we have made by targeting the vulnerable minds of children. How do we bring those people out of the dark ages?
Ever wonder how the same person can commit a seemingly selfless act of charity, and then a horribly selfish act of cruelty? Consider the behavior of people in simple economic games, behave strategically, and take advantage of the situation.
There are very well thought out, well substantiated, explanations how our universe came into existence. How the Big Bang might have occurred, how evolution works, how this all came to be and it all makes sense and is backed by tonnes of evidence. And then there are people that wave their hands and say 'God did it'. What do you think?
When I daydream about the origins of life I often think that life must have evolved from (types of) fire. It is so much like life. It "eats", self replicates, grows, dies etc. Do you think thats kooky, or fun to ponder? Have you ever heard of any respected scientists who published anything that smacks of my informal suspicion?
It begins at implantation when the change in the egg is complete, and human chorionic gonadotrophin is first detected 7 days after ovulation. Contraceptives that prevent implantation are not abortifacients. It is tim to support contraceptive choice.
The theory is that all of the galaxies that we see outside of the Milky Way no longer exist. We are only seeing a snapshot of them because of the time it takes for their light to get to us.In other words, if it takes millions of light years for light to get to us, most everything we see in the night sky no longer exists.
Let the fanatics be out. They aren't worth my effort of prebanning. So, I answered the question earlier as, Life is a series of self sustaining chemical reactions. I added some more stuff to it, but I knew that it was a hollow answer. Any more additions seemed equally worthless, for none of them made it complete and exhaustive. Can you try defining it? I'm leaving the closest I've got so far in comments.
Dihydrogen monoxide is known to cause burns, contributes to the greenhouse effect, etc. It is found in a lot of people when they die and a lot of people die because of it. Yet it is in schools and everywhere else you go. This chemical is highly dangerous