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.
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.
Note: this is not an issue of Theism and Atheism. Forcing theology (or proclaimed lack of it) into this debate, which is about a "scientific" theory, is both irrelevant and time-wasting. Please refrain from doing so.Science, in its purest form, is the process of explaining observed phenomena with hypotheses, then testing said hypotheses against current data. As such, the scientific community should be constantly improving itself, altering theories or creating new ones altogether to fit our gradually increasing understanding of the Universe. Or so one would think... Yet, since the theory of Darwinian Evolution rose to popularity, any attempt at challenging the scientific orthodoxy has been dismissed at best, and ridiculed at worst. For example, most responses I've received when requesting justification for Darwinian Evolution have amounted to little more than "you're an idiot for questioning it". This, coupled with what I believe to be faulty reasoning by many celebrities in the scientific community, demonstrates a lack of real, solid proof that this theory is sound.Thus, on this theoretically fair platform, I propose that Darwinian Evolution is an inherently flawed theory. Disregarding the issue of Abiogenesis, my arguments are as follows:1. Our current fossil record provides no indication that a given species has become another, dissimilar species. 2. No evidence has been found that minor, adaptive mutations (skin color, for example) is capable of leading to significant, beneficial mutations (developing new organs, for example), nor has any evidence been found of such mutations existing, much less being adopted by a species as a whole.3. The theory does not account for, nor explain the existence of, many varieties of symbiotic organisms. Take, for example, termites: they contain a bacteria in their stomachs that can digest cellulose, but is incapable of surviving outside said stomach. Assuming Darwinian Evolution to be accurate, both species would have had to mutate at exactly the same time, in the same area, with perfectly reciprocal deficiencies. This is a statistical absurdity.4. The theory does not explain the vast diversity of life on Earth. In a Darwinian environment, all life would be in a continuous struggle to gain dominance, until, at some point, a specific organism achieves an unanswerable advantage over all other life, becoming dominant and destroying all else. This is clearly not the case, given the astounding diversity of life (and forms of life) currently in existence.5. The theory does not explain many aspects of human beings, specifically morality. Human morality, in many instances, is an anathema to survival. People, for example, have not deliberately destroyed inferior (yet still somewhat threatening) species. This is counter to survival, as many of said species have caused a disturbing number of deaths (such as, indirectly, mosquitoes). Another example is charity: people are willing to donate their resources to other people, often in other countries, who they don't know at all. Sacrificing one's resources to someone they don't even know is counter to their survival, for hopefully obvious reasons. 6. This isn't an objective argument, but I'll list it anyway: much of the support of Darwinian Evolution comes from those who were taught to believe in it, and nothing else. I find that the Public School system (at least here in the U.S.) trains students to have little, if any, critical thinking skills, and forces this theory upon them, much like Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that this is treated like untouchable scripture is disturbing at best, and, when coupled with a scientific community more interested in politics than truth, leaves me with little faith in the products of said community.I encourage you to disagree with me, and state your reasoning behind said disagreement, but if it consists solely of "well, the other side does X" or "you're just an idiot for not believing in facts", then you will be banned. I enjoy intellectual discourse, but acting like children helps no one.
According to several scientific surveys, the ocean level has been rising
at a rate of 3.5 millimeters per year in the last 25 years. The
question which arises is whether this fact is a consequence of global
warming or some other causes could be held accountable for it as well.
It has been noticed lately an increase in number and intensity of
several catastrophic events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. They also
start to be present in some areas where they were not reported before.
The relation between these phenomena and climate change is yet not fully
With the highest elevation of 4.6 meters, the state of Tuvalu in the
Pacific Ocean is one of the countries with the lowest maximum elevation
on Earth. This makes it extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, which
can lead to land loses and, by extrapolation, to the sinking of the
whole national territory. It is not clear how this could be avoided.
Sea surface level measurements in the last 120 years show an increase of
the average temperature of the water. However, some people believe the
data are neither accurate nor complete so we cannot say the sea water is
getting warmer all over the world.
I say time travel is more than a possibility, it is a fact. It is an everyday observable phenomena. Everything that exists. tend to travel in time, from the past to the present and from the present to the future. Unfortunately the speed in which everything travels in time is same (or nearly same).