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.
They claim God does not exist because science hasn't proof. Like a blind man saying there are no clouds.(Disability………non~existence)Science has done well in investigating the causes and effects of the natural things of this world and even experimenting them to produce inventions...~Technology...That still does not withstand the fact that, 1. science is slow and very much behind in discovering the mysteries of this world. It's so bad that i believe what they have found so far can't exceed 1% of what the universe is about.2.Even within(1%) what science has found, not all have been explained.And the others that have been through experiments, guesses/hypothesis, observations and conclusions still face a different revelation on daily basis when new discoveries are made that refutes their previously established principles.Analogy:Science before God is not even up to David's age to hold a catapult before Goliath.Science is like a baby experiencing the early stages of a growing tooth(it's the only weapon since it cannot even use a catapult which is too advanced for it),therefore having an edge to bite, but since it bites a 101ft. tall Goliath and He is not reacting, baby science declares him a statue.Saying God does not exist because science doesn't prove him is the most useless argument one could ever make to disprove God's existence.You're not done discovering yourself and even upto 1% of your fellow creation but you want to discover God, the creator of you and the things you can't explain is insanity and will surely prove futile or to no avail. What do you expect?Science is not soon or never ever discovering God by your methodsWhat if these scientific laws do not apply to God and He only made them for His creations.if soWhat instrument are you going to use to measure God?
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?
This is not my evolution conquering theory yet.Jesus claimed to be God, but he came to meet the clouds as a man.So it justifies the fact that, Darwin also came to meet the clouds.Jesus still lives on above the clouds..Darwin is dead beneath the ground.Here is my proverb(the field i growverbs).A blind man cannot lead his fellow blind man to cross an unbridged ground gutter.Here, albert einstein backs me up."We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only **dimly suspects.**"Evolution is indeed a big gutter. Evolution is a book of a language we do not understand.Evolution is something darwin a fellow blind man dimly suspected.Blind means limited knowledge.Darwin is the brave curious fellow blind man who made an attempt to cross the gutter just like others have done with smaller gutters, he failed massively by falling into the colossal gutter close to "evolution"(which is not the proper term for his dim suspicion). And instead of getting out, so that the world applauds his brave attempt, he stayed in the gutter out of pride and the feeling of nearness to the discovery. He managed to convince a lot of blind men to jump into the gutter with him and they got used to the dirt of the gutter and also developed pride. It is the only one thing that makes them feel like supermen because at least they feel it's prgoress from their previous state of knowledge. They go back and forth everyday in the gutter. Some have managed back out of the gutter because they realise the vain work that they do.And the **blind** man Darwin to them is the one who has enlightened them. He can be classified as the special among them or **god**. He can explain the sophisticated nature of the world(the job of a creator past, present and future(which he couldn't race with unlike jesus, some god indeed)As Einstein agrees with me the most intelligent human being cannot comprehend it, every one should agree with me this is a waste of time ....So lets set fire on to those in the gutter and when their ashes become hipped in the gutter, we can walk over it just like a bridge to the land of true knowledge.Now let me break down the parable.In other words, the evolution theory should be abloished everywhere in the world as it is the main nuisance blocking us from thinking in other directions(excluding me), out o
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
So this has been an idea for along time now and it seems like we are not making much progress last time a checked. As you know, we do have along a problems at home that we need to take care of also. Probably more than it was back in the 60's and 70's. As of now, NASA doesn't launch any manned missions (on NASA craft). We are in considerable debt. Do you think we should continue planning to land on Mars or just abandoning the idea all together?
About 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Often times animals are used to test the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products before they are used by humans, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses.
***This debate is for Pd 1 Anatomy at Fairhaven High School ONLY!!! Do not add to this debate. Thank you! ***When a consumer eats fast food from a restaurant like McDonald’s or buys convenience food in a store, who is responsible for the deterioration in the consumer’s health caused by eating that food? Is it the consumer or is it the company that runs the restaurant?Sides must state their case AND include links to resources that back up their claim.
***This debate is for Pd 7 Anatomy at Fairhaven High School ONLY!!! Do not add to this debate. Thank you! ***When a consumer eats fast food from a restaurant like McDonald’s or buys convenience food in a store, who is responsible for the deterioration in the consumer’s health caused by eating that food? Is it the consumer or is it the company that runs the restaurant?Sides must state their case AND include links to resources that back up their claim.