CreateDebate


AltonSmith's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of AltonSmith's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Capitalism provides environment in which anyone has an opportunity to succeed. There are certain individuals who would attempt to abuse that, but legal guidelines in truly capitalist countries discourage that.

1 point

The allowance of a period of silence in which students can pray has no moral, ethical, or legal challenge.

1 point

You do not describe any actual cowardice in my instance. Thus, the personal attack fails.

2 points

Clarify how it resembled fascism. It is generally accepted that such statements are merely reflect the talking points distributed by the left-wing media.

1 point

Yes, and "Lottery tickets can never provide a winner because they are random". Except that we know that they do all the time. In fact I've already given an example of such a case which you have already conceded.

You are saying that random mutations would provide the solution to the organism's requirements. Given the fact that they are random, they would not provide the solution to whatever problem may be present. You also assume that mutations occur in a sequence that compliments each preceding phase, which eliminates the notion of any randomness. In addition, a single mutation in the DNA cannot cause a change in phenotype, given the number of genes that generate the features associated with the phenotype.

You will find that there are corrective mechanisms in place to eliminate the problems associated with mutations.

The example of the lottery is ineffective because it is a somewhat guided process compared to evolution.

You like nearly all other creationists ignore the fact that such traits don't have to have the same function, just as long as it has a function.

If it does not have a function that exists properly with the system in question than it could indeed be harmful or at least a useless expenditure of resources.

For example, a semi-formed wing even if it cannot provide flight it can still be beneficial for gliding.

That is assuming that the wing could form partially. You also ignore the utterly critical fact that not every stage of development would have a use.

Furthermore, that does not incorporate the crucial fact that such an organism requires much more than a wing to engage in flight or, indeed, utilize its wings. It requires the metabolism to ensure that it receives the proper level of nutrition to sustain flight, in addition to a musculoskeletal system and vascular system that provide it with the locomotive capabilities to use wings. Thus, one would find that many stages in the development of the wing would produce structures that would be useless.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

-Charles Darwin, 1859

An eye which sees in black and white is better than no eye at all. A light sensitive cell is better than one that isn't. et cetera.

Once again, that ignores the crucial steps that would necessarily have to occur in between each stage of ocular development, as such an assembly is quite intricate.

Should I just take your word for it? You need to provide something substantial to support this opinion. You just stated that there wouldn't be a reason, you never said why.

I have iterated the explanation earlier, but will provide additional detail. Also, you should provide support for your perspective, not repeat statements with no proper description.

The human personality and mental development is quite advanced, much more so than any other organisms on Earth. That is indisputable, as neuroscience proves. As we are aware that other life forms have established forms of communication, it would be reasonable to suggest that the early humans would have as well. In fact, that is a belief held by the evolutionary community. As such, having developed a reasonable form of communication and development, why would there be any need to develop beyond that? You have yet to provide an effective response to this argument.

Emotions communicate to other members of the same species. Fear for example may communicate to other members that there is a potential danger nearby. Anger may indicate a conflict within a group, that needs to be rectified.

You will find that numerous organisms have established forms of communication. As they are capable of recognizing all of these problems, why would there be any need to develop emotions, which can actually hinder effective reactions to issues?

Every extinct species ever discovered.

This is false. There is no evidence that demonstrates the sizeable number of organisms that must have (according to evolutionary theory) experienced random, useless mutations which were genetically rectified in subsequent generations.

I am telling you that this is not how DNA works. There is no ciphering or processing organelle in cells, nor would there be a need for them. The same reason why raindrops don't need to calculate trajectory before falling to the earth, the molecules are simply responding to what is there (namely gravity).

I am not suggesting that the mechanism that you describe above is what actually exists. However, there are enzymes that conduct the processes that occur in gene expression. As such information theory conspires against evolution.

In addition, irreducible complexity is observed in the development of first cells. They could not have developed in stages, given that many of the features would have required other structures to sustain them.

1 point

Why do you debate if facts have no bearing on your position? Are you paid to argue? The point of debate is to find a solution, not to argue for a point simply for the sake of argument.

I do believe that I have provided sufficient support for my points. The purpose of debate, particularly of the informal, leisurely type found on this website is to serve as a forum where opposing ideas are compared and compete, not to find solutions.

I have indeed provided solutions for the issues here.

It is a ridiculous circle. Facts are facts. Our system is poor, every system with a public option or universal care spends less money on better care.

It seems that you are not aware of two key facts.

First, in the countries that provide any acceptable level of quality in healthcare, that must be funded by the government. Obviously, that money ultimately comes from taxpayers. Eventually, they will have to raise taxes to provide for the spending, while increasing the national debt levels.

Second, there are countries with such systems that already offer decreasing levels of care. Look at Canada and the U.K. as adequate examples. Waiting times have increased compared to the United States, in addition to harsh conditions in the hospitals and rampant corruption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7071660.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539943,00.html

1 point

I don't see how any of this presents any problem to the theory of Evolution, you just have a few misconceptions about it.

Mutations will not function as providing adaptive properties, as they are random. As such, we cannot believe that they are the solution to evolutionary issues that may arise. In fact, there is no fossil evidence that demonstrates any of the forms that experienced all of the harmful mutations necessarily required by evolutionary theory and subsequently died out.

You have yet to prove that this is false.

None of the examples you listed represent irreducible complexity, whether or not you think that could have developed through evolutionary processes or not.

Many of the systems do illustrate irreducible complexity, as they would not function properly or at all without all of the parts being in existence. This indicates that you do not have a knowledge of what constitutes such a system.

Furthermore, there is no logical or scientific evidence to suggest that the development as required by evolution (in stages, with many useless developments occurring) could possibly occur. This means that, even if we are to assume that one or more of the phases actually produces a useful apparatus, that at the point where a useless structure is developed, the trait will not survive as a result of natural selection.

Yes, it would. Every non-useful structure would be eliminated, until a useful structure was found.

That assumes that a useful structure will necessarily be present at every stage of development. That is not true. In the ongoing evolutionary process, there would have to be biological structures that would serve no purpose, as they would not fulfill the ultimate role required by the change. If a random mutation were to produce a an alteration that may begin enable a sea dwelling organism to survive in a terrestrial environment, there is no reason to suggest that it would continue that pattern of development, especially as such a trait would not suit an aquatic life form. In fact, there are numerous genetic mechanisms in place to eliminate unnecessary mutations.

This is your argument

1. Verbal communication is useful in many animals

2. Therefore, there is no reason for complex speech to develop in humans

Not particularly. I am stating that there would be no reason for primitive man to develop advanced mental capabilities. As we have observed moderately advanced communicative and mental traits in other related species, it stands to reason, that at some point in this timeline, a similar mechanism would have developed at an earlier point. As such features would be adequate for their purposes, advanced traits such as ours would have had no need to develop. Indeed, humans have personalities and emotions (this is scientifically documented). Other animals also exhibit similar features. Of what possible use would personalities and many if not all emotions serve from an evolutionary standpoint?

Evolution works much like trial and error.

It is unfortunate that there is no fossil evidence of the trials that resulted in no gain. One would assume the existence of countless such fossils representing organisms that never passed on their genes.

Except this is not how DNA works. Micro-organisms do not "read" DNA like you and I read words. This requires a certain level of comprehension. This is the problem when people take certain analogies too literally. DNA is an acid, it is in itself a cause of various effects especially in meiosis. It is not the interpretation or comprehension of DNA but the DNA itself which affects the development of organisms, despite the fact that it is often described that way in literature.

I am quite aware of this. An simpler explanation of my point would be to state that such information is useless without any capability for it to be processed into whatever the particular segment might indicate. Indeed, the ability to process the information depends on already possessing it. However, DNA must provide a sequence that serves a function, or it is useless. How, then are we to assume that it arose in any understandable manner, rather than useless strands such as those found during a mutation?

1 point

So, in other words, the costs for the healthcare system is extremely high, which is the exact same criticism that we have come to expect from opponents of the great private system.

Privatized healthcare promotes innovation and ultimately causes novel treatments to become commonplace and, as a result of market forces, much cheaper.

3 points

Absolutely terrible, given unemployment levels, and the fact that certain policies could reverse such outsourcing.

1 point

It is a republic. That supports the notion suggested by the title of this debate.

2 points

For what reason? What evidence suggests that it is superior to a private system?

1 point

You're thinking about this completely ass backwards. Mutation is not 'looking' for any specific genetic code, it is simply the alteration of what is already present.

First, we are not talking about the evolution of the donkey.

Second, mutations, being random, most often cause a loss of information or an alteration thereof. They would not serve as the basis for some type of biological change necessitated by the environment.

Incorrect.

Anything that exists or can exist in gradients cannot be irreducibly complex.

None of the examples could have developed in the manner required by evolution. I believe that it has been explained quite clearly at this point. If an organism possessed limbs, and if there was no requirement for a change thereof, the limbs would not be altered. It is also because the development (occurring in phases as mandated by evolution) would not produce useful structures at every instance, even of the first one was.

So human intelligence, thought and social behavior had nothing to do with our dominance of the planet?

As evolutionary theory posits that each feature that develops requires phases, we could assume that the first humans would not have acquired such mental function as modern humans have. However, we have observed the usefulness of primitive mechanisms of communication among other organisms, including vocalizations meant to convey rather specific messages. As such, there would be no biological requirement for anything more advanced in the early humans, yet we are still clearly aware of the nature of human advancement.

Your statement is irrelevant. It fails to take into account the factors enumerated above.

That's precisely why it didn't have that trait at that time. It only acquired that trait AFTER there was a necessity for it.

One would find that many biological necessities are driven by urgent environmental requirements. In many instances, the organism in question would be destroyed prior to adapting properly.

Yes it does.

You fail to take into account the fact that it is random. By the definition of that word, a mutation of that variety would not be a result in the solution to the problem.

"If there wasn't a need for _______ to happen, then ______ wouldn't have happened."

If we are to assume that evolution in this scenario is caused by adaptations to environmental requirements, the lack of a such a requirement would not produce adaptations, as there would be no compulsion to adapt.

_____________________________________________

You will also find that evolution is incompatible with information theory. This is easily illustrated by the origins of life on Earth. If we are to assume that cells formed, it is necessary to have the genetic information to create the organelles. However, that requires the ability to read that information. However, the ability to read such information suggests that compatible DNA has already developed. However, we will see that there is a paradox. The information would be useless without the any way by which to translate it, and the ability to perform actions is prevented by the inability to read said data.

Also, these cells would not have formed simply because they require multiple structures to operate. Unless we are to assume that they arose simultaneously (which is incompatible with the theory), there is no solution to that problem from an evolutionary standpoint.

0 points

What the hell are you talking about? The development of relevant information? Relevant to what? An event that hasn't happened yet?

In order to develop a biological structure, you must have the genetic information encoded in your DNA to do so. If that DNA has not developed, the mutation will not serve the purpose suggested by the later development.

So prolific that we cannot name even one.

Every organ, wings, limbs, et cetera. How about the human mind. Neuroscientists recognize our complexity in that matter. However, there is no evolutionary reason to suggest the need for such a development. Or consider our complex system of vocal communication. That would not be necessary among the primitive humans, as we have observed in other species vocalizations that enable communication (just consider canines).

Thus mutation.

A random mutation would not provide the solution to the problem.

No, not require. They would feed on different food sources based on what is available and on what they are suited to preying upon.

Then they would not have an evolutionary requirement to adapt to different forms of wood, as other sources of food would be available.

as it is quite difficult to comprehend a non-linear process on such a large scale.

The flaws easily demonstrate the issues associated with evolutionary theory, so it is a simple matter to comprehend how it fails.

I scarcely know what yours even is. As best I am able to surmise it is some form of Old World Creationism. You have shied away from revealing what it really is that you believe, in an attempt to protect it from criticism.

I assume that you would agree with me that universe is several billion years old.

I have over 99% of biologists on my side.

The concept of the atom was considered laughable by the scientific community at one point, as well.

1 point

You love saying there are all these problems with universal health care even though all the other countries which have it have more people satisfied with their care, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, more preventative care and treatment for everyone. please tell me how a privatized system is better for the entire population.

I don't "love" to say it; it merely is a truthful statement.

http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/3683-canadian-healthcare-continues-its-collapse

http://www.examiner.com/health-care-in-national/canada-s-health-care-system-has-its-problems

which only works if you can afford it, which a lot of people can't. That's why universal health care works, because everyone can get these early detection tests, but no, people like you want to have them available for the rich who can afford them but defund things like cancer screenings for poor people who can't afford to live.

Please cease making baseless assumptions about my beliefs. Our private system enables innovation that drastically reduces costs over the years. It is also economically sustainable, whereas a universal system is not.

but your motives are still profit and not healing people.

Our doctors are extremely passionate about what they do. For the developers of technologies and hospital management, the motive for profit necessarily means that quality is pursued because that it how to avoid lawsuits and maintain customers.

that has been shown to work in countries that have it.

Please demonstrate (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) how such a system is economically sustainable, how waiting times are not egregious (they are, however), and how quality is enforced in a universal healthcare system (it isn't).

If anything, your system as a whole is terrible because it has the capability to save lives but holds back treatment in the name of profit.

The current insurance reform law that was signed last year will cause increases in premiums simply because it mandates higher expenditures on the part of insurance companies. That seems to be contrary to the notion that prices must be decreased, and as such is a demonstration of the ways that such reform can be harmful.

Also, the public systems in other nations require government funding. That can come immediately from taxes, or they can borrow, but ultimately raise taxes to repay those borrowed funds. Or, they could control expenditures by drastically rationing care.

so what? what is wrong with that other than it encroaches on a scary word. You are willing to let thousands die needlessly every year because you don't like the idea of having a couple hundred less dollars in the your pocket at the end of the year. Universal health care works for everyone, not just the rich.

I was merely responding to the earlier point that suggested that universal healthcare and socialism may not be interrelated. Economic systems that resemble or mimic socialism necessarily increase debt and must repay that, implementing measures such as the austerity policies in Greece. Just look at it, as well as numerous other nations with mounting debt as a result. Socialism is not economically sustainable.

1 point

It is a far more efficient system that enables innovation and establishes a far more effective system of treatment. One will find that universal healthcare systems derive their revenue from taxes (meaning that you still must pay for treatment) and the quality is vastly decreased as a result.

1 point

by human you mean, a member of the genus Homo, then yes. But by this very same definition the fragments themselves are considered 'human'. This is not what most people mean when they say human. If you are implying that homo sapien remains are found in the same layer then this would be entirely false.

I do believe that this has been explained. Humans were identified as having assailed h. erectus and as such disprove the notion that said species preceded h. sapiens.

Such a transition is entirely feasible.

That is a statement and not an explanation of how that might work.

You mean like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

None of these supposed transitional fossils represent the critical alterations that one might expect.

Using this data scientists have been able to construct an evolutionary tree up until the point where DNA is still obtainable.

This in no way suggests an accurate depiction of the tree. It has been demonstrated that ERVs have specific functions, and it is a simple matter to document that species possess this virus, but not to state that they necessarily demonstrate development. How is it that they infected the original hosts without causing damage?

Nevertheless the only problem this poses to evolution, is the rate at which scientists believe diversification occurs.

The strata in the region demonstrate that through that point 98% of species ultimately became extinct. This is the converse of evolutionary theory. They also provide evidence showing that most phyla known to us now coexisted during this period. This contradicts the suppositions that are accepted by evolutionists.

Such a transition is entirely feasible.

There is no reason to believe this. If there was no need to begin feeding from trees with more resilient wood, any predecessor forms would not have done so and consequently not have altered. If there was an urgent requirement, they would not have survived to evolve.

1 point

Such as?

The process specifically requires the development of relevant information that will enable the organism to undergo some biological change (i.e. any evolutionary metamorphosis that results in new biological structures), not a mere mutation that alters an insufficient number of traits or, worse, corrupts them.

Yet no one has ever produced even one.

Such systems are prolific in nature. Presumably any one that comes to mind as you read this can be labeled as irreducibly complex.

These are not an all-or-nothing traits, that irreducible complexity requires.

In fact, they easily establish that the developments could not have occurred. Look at the information example for the other element of irreducible complexity.

This is something which can change gradually over time. You need to give up on the woodpecker example. The more you argue this, the more you exacerbate the weakness of your argument.

A woodpecker would not be able to survive a greater intensity if it does not have the necessary features. It would not develop these for that simple reason. You are suggesting that it would require different food sources, and thus a different mechanism of obtaining said food. Were that true, it would be eliminated for lack of food before developing the necessary traits, or, if there was no necessity, it would not have any need for the altered capabilities.

You need to go back and re-read what I said. I never said we don't need to know how evolution works, I never said that. What I said was that we don't need to know how specific evolutionary traits develop, to know that evolution occurs. Please contemplate the difference in meaning here.

I am in no way suggesting that you must no how each species developed. However, it would be prudent to understand the mechanism, and, particularly, its flaws.

As I have responded to your arguments and defended my own, you may want to reconsider yours.

1 point

How does the discovery of Java man and Peking man, cause fossil evidence to cease to exist?

The earlier explanations (which I have no intention of reiterating here) demonstrate that it the evidence of human descent that you posit to exist does indeed not provide the necessary explanation.

You are insisting here, that it is their bias that prevents them from seeing the Australopithecus as something other than a human ancestor. Yet this supposed 'bias' did not prevent them from declaring the Homo Neanderthalensis as not an ancestor to humans.

They merely replaced it with something else.

Tell me then, where is your source stating that skull damage to the Peking man was similar to the way that indigenous people hunted? Or is this as well un-evidenced?

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/courses/Peking1.htm

The fifth paragraph provides an accurate description. This also references nature of the injuries as being caused by humans.

A fragment, is still a part of a whole. There is no reason to pluralize it. If you drop a ceramic plate and it shatters into 60 fragments, do you now have plates, or just 60 pieces of one plate?

This is irrelevant.

Yes, because they are completely different species. You would expect to find numerous differences. A wolf has numerous differences from a Chihuahua, but one is still the descendant of the other.

Having been bred in such a manner, one would expect such differences, though they are different in nature than h. erectus and h. sapiens.

1 point

It is not a 'principal' it is your assumption, which you have yet to justify. For the third time, let me ask:

What makes you think that the first stage, cannot be beneficial?

I have described the facts numerous times and do not intend to continue doing so.

It's funny to me, because in another post where I listed Artificial Selection as a mechanism of evolution, you disregarded it off-hand not really even understanding what it was that you were dismissing. This tells me you don't research anything that doesn't support your opinions or are reluctant to do so.

I have researched it and will not waste further time on scientific inaccuracies. Artificial selection is not relevant to the natural world as it incorporates a more intelligent being maintaining the breeding process.

So then you admit you were wrong to say that mutations are always destructive?

I never enumerated thus.

What you continue to refer to as a "stage" is not so. There are no stages in evolution, because there is no goal, there is no end-product. Everything exists and survives on it's own right. In this way all species are transitional species, as they all came from something and will become something else (except the first eukaryotes and Prokaryotes). So as long as there is an accumulation of change, there will be evolution.

According to evolutionary theory, there are quantifiable stages that represent the development of organisms.

1 point

The premise of your argument is that this species had many ape-like characteristics and therefore couldn't be a human ancestor, is completely asinine. Especially given it's distance to Modern humans.

Humans have been found in the same strata as these fossil fragments. This indicates that they would not have been transitional forms.

This also neglects all other instances in which the fossil record fails to demonstrate the transitional forms that would be expected were evolution to be correct.

A genetic relationship does not mean that the one organism precedes another.

Indeed it does. You inability to comprehend a scholarly scientific work, makes it no less of strong verifiable evidence (or proof).

Or my ability to comprehend that it does not overcome the limitations associated with the theory.

If evolution is not true, then what would explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record in direct correspondence to shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order)?

This does not accurately represent the fossil record. There are numerous instances of events that drove the existence of various species. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, for instance, eliminated the dinosaurs. You also may not be aware of the somewhat inconvenient (for evolutionists) Cambrian explosion, which suggests that numerous species emerged during a period that is much shorter than the commonly accepted evolutionary timeline.

They are either related via evolution, or some divine force creates a new species every thousand years or so. Which sounds more reasonable?

Considering that I have demonstrated where evolution fails resist scrutiny, it is obvious that creationism is more believable.

No, you just assume (without explanation) that the first stage of a new trait cannot be beneficial. I've asked numerous time for you to expound on this argument.

I have offered an explanation, without any proper rebuttal.

And you proposed the woodpecker as an example of irreducible complexity. The fact that birds exist which can peck through wood but lack many of the traits of the woodpecker verily refutes this argument as an example of irreducible complexity.

The beaks of numerous birds may have the integrity to withstand several repeated impacts, but that does not mean that they have the capability to sustain that. Woodpeckers possess:

1. zygodactyl feet

2. protective cartilage around the head

3. a barbed tongue to aid in insect extraction

4. a round, smaller brain to alleviate impact force

This nullifies your argument.

1 point

You've just re-phrased the assumption that I was disputing in the first place. This doesn't answer my question at all.

Why do you assume, that it cannot provide a benefit?

I have stated the manner by which the principle is applied.

The difference between wolves and chihuahuas is quite large, but we know that Chihuahuas descended from wolves.

You will find that humans domesticated wolves and bred them for specific purposes, demonstrating a guided process different than natural selection.

Feathers initially may have been useful for body insulation. Colorful feather may have been useful for mate selection. A fan-like appendage may have been useful in making one's self look bigger to scare off rivals, to block wind from offspring while in the egg, to swim, to move foliage/debris, to jump higher through flapping, to glide, and to eventually glide and any other uses that I may not have thought off.

Feathers are not the only aspect that allows an organism to take flight. It requires numerous features that enable the bird to do so.

Most illnesses we have become immune to through mutation. For instance many Caucasians of European descent, are immune or resistant to Sickle-cell Anema, through mutation

It can, in rare instances. However, it will not account for the complexity involved in developing from one stage to another. That would require that the sequence of mutations all complement one another or that they occur simultaneously, which would not happen.

0 points

I believe that the term that you are searching for when describing evolution is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Mechanisms for Evolution:

You ignore the biological processes that must occur in order for such alterations to occur. They are not explained by the above mechanisms.

I don't think you understand what irreducible Complexity actually means. Irreducible Complexity is an apologetic argument, it is a hypothetical natural system, that if discovered would disprove Evolution. The problem is, that no one has actually ever actually found an irreducibly complex system. Some have been proposed, such as the bacterial Flagellum, but none have been verified.

No, the real problem is that evolutionists fail to accept that the majority of biological systems are irreducibly complex.

The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees EFFICIENTLY. Many birds lacking these individual traits are capable of drilling into trees.

The woodpecker possesses protective measures that enable it to survive drilling into trees. Otherwise it would be killed. If those did not exist, it would be useless to possess the other capabilities that allow it to drill into trees.

But it does prove that it is not an irreducibly complex system.

We need not know how specific evolutionary traits developed to know that evolution occurs.

If scientists said that about other fields, we would not have the level of advancement that we do as a society. You profess not to need to know why it works simply because it does not work. However, no evolutionist could admit that.

1 point

How so?

It should be obvious when I say that there is no fossil evidence to support a theory that it means that the theory is not supported in that way and neither are any arguments to that effect.

evolutionary biologist

People who built their careers around a specific theory and have no desire to accept that it is false when proven thus?

Your creationist apologetic websites, perhaps

That is assuming that I use such websites. However, we may draw a parallel here. As you assert that I use these websites while having no evidence thereof, you also have an equivalent amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

The fact that you pluralized this tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Peking Man is ONE specimen, of Homo Erectus, to date there have been at least 222 specimens found worldwide.

This suggests that you are not aware that multiple fragments were found at the Chinese site that gave Peking Man the nickname.

Trying to disprove evolution, by showing that a single specimen of a single species isn't a human ancestor, is absurd and it makes you look like a buffoon.

I have provided numerous arguments to such an effect. The one mentioned above simply refutes one of your points.

What indigeounous people? Homo Erectus is found on three separate continents. I suggest you not use Creationist apologetic websites, they are very unreliable.

The aforementioned fossil fragments indicate that the nature of the assumptions draw around them has no evidence to support it. The Peking Man fragments suggest massive differences between humans and homo erectus.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2008-01/15/content_11575842.htm

This supports the notion of evolution but mentions humans found at the site.

Supporting Evidence: Evidence (www.chinadaily.com.cn)
1 point

She is highly reasonable and can appeal to voters, so there is a possibility.

1 point

...based on?

You've stated this elsewhere, but yet to justify this assumption.

You will recognize that evolution does not occur immediately from one generation to another. If that is so, it will require several stages of development. As this does not occur rapidly, the first alterations to the organism will provide no tangible benefit. Natural selection dictates that this will be eliminated by the subsequent generations.

Wings are limbs. Notice reptiles have 4 limbs, and avians have 4 limbs. The frontal limbs simply adapted for gliding, flapping etc...

The differences between the limbs are quite large if one analyzes the variations in biological systems that comprise them. For what reason would a conventional dinosaur's limb begin to adapt in such a manner. Indeed, such an adaptation suggests that the information necessary to construct the wing exists, but there is no reason to believe that it would have developed.

DNA works much the same way. It is composed of 4 base pairs arranged in a chain, and the arrangement of these base pairs in the chain can result in entirely new features.

Random mutations will not provide the basis for evolution. It is far more common for mutations to result in a loss or corruption of information, which will not provide the necessary basis for development, unless we are to assume that all of the mutations that define every aspect of an evolution occur.

1 point

Not true. For your theory to operate correctly, this gradual biological evolution must have occurred. That requires that is possess a mechanism that operates properly, but irreducible complexity disproves that notion.

Even if there were instances in which traits are utilized in unsuspected ways, in other instances they would not be, and as such evolution would be necessary. However, it would not occur because, in those instances, the first traces of development would not benefit the creature and as such would be eliminated through natural selection.

The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees. These are necessary for its protection and simply so that it can extract insects from the wood. Simply because various birds have the capability to drill into different forms of wood in so way proves that an evolutionary development occurred.

1 point

I say that it is not sufficient merely because such "evidence" does not provide the answers to the problems that I am posing in relation to evolution. As this occurs, you turn to assail creationist belief, not realizing that my arguments have gone unanswered.

I am not asking for a fossil line that demonstrates every stage of every evolution that supposedly occurred, as that does not and will not exist. However, as time progresses, one would suspect that actual fossilized evidence of some important transitional forms would appear at some point, especially considering the effort that the scientific community applies to proving its vaunted theory of evolution.

While, as you said, neither theory provides every answer, it is clear that, evolution, having been eviscerated in such a way, did not occur. There is only one alternative. The complexity of the universe and its components is one indicator. Given the probability alone, it is impossible that these factors could have developed by any other means.

1 point

I have seen your other arguments. Your arguments do not constitute proofs. Nor have you presented such. You have offered only rhetorical and polemical arguments.

My arguments significantly impact the cases that I have seen mentioned here by evolutionists, both here and otherwise. You have yet to provide a substantial argument to the contrary in any case.

"Scientists" have done no such thing. Australopithecus Afarensis, is today as ever still considered an ancestor to modern humans by the scientific community.

The fossil evidence found was rather clear. The cranial characteristics suggest massive similarities between gorillas and a. afarensis. The body suggests capabilities that optimize its ability to transport itself through trees. Overall, the fossils are evident to consist of a creature that greatly resembled a gorilla rather than humans.

Proof of evolution:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19468/

This is a scholarly article.

The word proof suggests that it actually serves as proof.

The alternative being that these specimens aren't related, that they just "appeared" and "disappeared" (as if by magic) periodically over the course of earth's history for no known reason. That their appearance just so happens to correspond to common shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order).

This is not unexpected. When evolutionists are confronted with arguments which they cannot refute, an immediate distraction is in order. I have provided several arguments that clearly demonstrate that the mechanisms touted as enabling evolution simply cannot operate.

1 point

It continues to demonstrate that the fossil evidence that you have mentioned ceases to exist.

Java Man consisted of bone fragments and was determined not to be related to be related to human species.

Peking Man specimens' skulls were damaged in the same manner that the indigenous people hunted for monkeys, in addition to not being a verifiable hominid. Human remains were found in the same strata at the sites where both of the aforementioned fragments were found.

1 point

All of which the right is desperate to defund, and all of which do not provide adequate care.

They are not adequate because of the problems inherent in any publicly-funded healthcare apparatus.

This results in a system where for the vast majority of the population, very expensive diseases are not caught until they are very expensive, while had the individuals who became ill been able to diagnose it earlier, it would have been significantly less expensive to treat.

Hospitals and clinics already utilize and indeed comprise a vast infrastructure that aids in the early detection and treatment of diseases, with more technologies and methods becoming available every year to better provide care at the preliminary stages of numerous disorders.

The issues with private healthcare are that they are for profit. As long as this is the case there is no incentive to cure, only incentive to treat, incentive to reject claims, and by the rules of publicly traded companies, not only incentive to charge more, but incentive to charge the most one would possibly be willing to pay for it.

There are issues with the American health care system as it exists currently. However, issues such as corruption are easily eliminated through legal means, whereas in a government system it is often far more challenging by virtue of the fact that members of the government are far more entrenched.

In response to your other claim that the profit motive dominates the industry., that drives innovation and quality. Insurance and healthcare providers are encouraged to provide higher quality because that attracts more customers, and, as a consequence, higher profits.

There are measures that can reduce existing prices, such as allowing insurance companies to market policies across state lines, in addition to tort reform.

Insurance reform will require that such companies raise premiums to account for the sudden increase in their expenditures as mandated by the somewhat recently passed law.

This hurts employers even more than individuals, and small businesses (not the Business Association made up by the likes of BoA, Boeing, GE, etc that Fox is always talking about, I mean businesses with their corporate here in America with a few thousand or less employees who are actually the backbone of our economy) are all for a public option of one sort or another.

Those claims are false. Members of the businesses, including small businesses, will be impacted negatively as they often must invest their own funds in the business, especially as owners. In addition, the requirement that they provide healthcare policies to employees or face a penalty is financially harmful. Furthermore, the resulting tax compliance codes will mandate additional business spending.

And the "polls" you refer to are not ones with an agenda, it is an international body with little interest in US specific politics. They take numbers and read the results, that is all. link - this is a copy of the W.H.O. rankings. link It's multinational and there are no multinational for profit health organizations that would have anything to gain by influencing results

Unless the assumptions that underly the ratings are incorrect.

Oh, we have the best doctors, there's no doubt about that. And with certain diseases we are the best if you can afford it. While our lower education is lacking, the US still has something like 7 of the top 10 Universities in the world, and this includes for doctors. I won't argue that. The problem is the best doctors can only afford to treat people who are rich or insured, otherwise you're having cancer diagnosed by a nurse with an associates and a computer print out.

We do have the highest quality healthcare on the world, as reflected in our doctors, and the treatments that are offered continue to provide care for conditions that were previously considered fatal.

It's called healthcare reform to make progressives like me happy. In reality it's insurance reform. It's a start and will decrease our debt and improve our care. And honestly it's the best we could get in the current political climate. If the US wants to get where we belong, where the richest, and most advanced country in the world should be, we need to educate the population on the difference between "socialism" and a public option (not the same, not by any definition of either term) and implement a true public option or a true Universal Healthcare system.

Government intervention in a public healthcare system encroaches on socialism by definition. What we need to do is improve the existing private system so as to promote innovation and quality. Increased spending and taxation to maintain this law will increase the debt and will not encourage an economic recovery.

1 point

I am referring to fossils such as australopithecus afarensis, in addition to fragments that established potential transitional forms including Java man and Peking man.

1 point

That ignores the important evolutionary "fact" that there there would necessarily be transitional forms between these.

1 point

Evolutionary theory posits that the alterations that created each successive species occurred in stages over millions of years. The first phases in this development would not provide the function that is ultimately required (consider the development of wings). Also, taking the example of wings, such development assumes that the information necessary to construct such structures is created at some point.

Mutation is the alteration of existing information, not the creation of new information.

1 point

Evolution is the explanatio­n that threads it all together.

That is assuming that it can be proven.

And it isn't. But you have yet to provide any such proofs.

I have. Just glance at the earlier arguments in this particular debate string.

You would be mistaken. The Australopithecus Afarensis is an evolutionary predecessor to Homo Sapiens.

Scientists have determined that the number of differences between australopithecus afarensis and both humans and gorillas suggests that it does not represent a predecessor to humans. You can search for the relevant information on Google.

At any rate, this presents no problem to the theory of Evolution, there will be of course shifting of species.

It continues to demonstrate that you have no sufficient proof of evolution.

And of course, the more species we have, the more fossils we have, the more gaps would exist between them. So many, that we are able to catalog the rise of individual traits. There is a specific sequence in the fossil record. There are no human remains older than 200 thousand years old. There are no Mammal fossils older than 300 million. There are no Reptile fossils older than 400 million years old. No vertebrates at all before 600 million years ago.

There is no fossil evidence that demonstrates the forms that would represent a transition between species. That evidence simply does not exist.

1 point

First, I do enjoy academic debate regarding such subjects.

the parts of evolutionism that are known is that we did evolve from other creatures, that is based on fossil, geographic and other scientific hard evidence.

I would posit that evolutionary theory required much more faith. It lacks the evidence that you suggest. An overarching goal of science is to discover the laws that govern the universe. As current understanding still has yet to unearth all of these, it should not be considered a problem by the scientific community when a theory is proven to be false.

I will assume that some of these fossils that you refer to might be ones such as australopithecus afarensis, but the unfortunate fact (for proponents of the above theory) is that it has been discovered to not be a predecessor form in the supposed "hominid tree."

There are too many gaps in the current evolutionary tree to state that any sufficient fossil evidence exists. You will find that these gaps occur in many locations that would describe important missing links in the various species' evolution. Darwin stated that there must have been an extraordinary number of transitional forms.

but please, provide me with any scientific evidence for anything in the creationist beliefs, besides that we dont know what started the first life.

Please provide evidence for evolutionary theory.

by the way, labeling things we cant explain as gods doing simply tells scientists to be satisfied with the god answer. your taking the side of st james when he said, curiosity is the greatest sin, im sorry, i dont believe curiosity is the greatest sin, i want to be able to scientifically explain what happened in the begging, even if that explaination is proven to have god involved, or a higher power.

That curiosity being referred to above does not encompass scientific inquiry. There are certainly scientific explanations for many aspects of the universe's development (and by extension Earth's), but logic and science conspire against evolution.

2 points

That is in addition to reports such as those of Josephus and Flavius, which quite obviously provide an account of His existence.

2 points

If that were true, some of his followers would have stated that He was not to be believed or that He never existed. However, of all of those who witnessed Him, there are no contradictory accounts.

2 points

Not particularly. This will enter the territory of the general debate pertaining to whether the world would be improved without the existence if religion.

Christianity provides a moral basis for millions around the world, in addition to promoting an infrastructure of charity, as well as providing hope for many who are in despair.

1 point

Belief A = Denying women the ability to have abortions;

A pro-choice person would state Belief A as immoral.

A pro-life person would state Belief A as moral.

In a manner of speaking.

Both of them are interpreting the belief, but both have a different belief about if it is wrong.

What do you mean by moral arena? Do you mean they use the same moral beliefs to determine if it is right or wrong?

A more accurate statement in that debate would be "Women have a moral right to have an abortion" or the converse. Both are reflections of one, another, each supporting its respective view. Ethics would be the determination of whether an abortion is correct in each circumstance in which it may be applied, or the determination of which methods are proper during a procedure.

1 point

define: "thinking autonomously" or "independent thought". What it appears to be is a impossibility, but I'll wait to tear it to shreds till you better define it.

Making considerations and evaluations regarding situations using one's own faculties. These analyses are then utilized to craft a proper response (hopefully) based on these circumstances.

The implication of this is that a human can think as an entity separate from external influence and as such is independent. You may suppose that it is not independent because the thought can be affected by other factors, but the mental capability to process and develop said thought is most certainly independent.

It seems you are stating that if I were to make a "world" object, in c++, with only one method accessible to a user, a "exist/run" method, and give it many sub-objects as its properties, and utility methods which made the sub-objects interact(probably by evolutionary programing) I would not though the complete creation of the world determine how a particular object I created interacts with the rest of the objects due to this objects ability to "think autonomously". (assuming I could create such an object)

I was referring to the fact that your earlier metaphor utilized examples that accept human input and produce a corresponding output.

With regard to your current metaphor, there are similarities, but that is not true. Rather, my supposition would be more accurately represented by an artificial intelligence such as those that are not in existence yet.

1 point

I would posit that we are both considering various aspects of the problem.

1 point

The first parts enumerate the fact that anyone might consider legal obligations in any situation, and hence the related consequences.

The actions that occur will provide the basis for either the morality or the lack thereof in a situation.

1 point

It does fail partially on the designers(since there are more then one) of the computer, one the designers of the non-malicious programs, and on the designers of the virus. The god we are talking about is the only creator, and thus all blame rests on him. The only way it could be other wise was if humans co-create independently of god and environment ( a impossibility) and thus god wouldn't of create everything, be all powerful, and certainly not all knowing.

That is illogical, as there is no connection between what the creator does and what someone else, possessing the ability to think autonomously, chooses to do with that creation.

A person is Similar in this regard to a shift register or other sequential device. The device itself makes no "decisions". The child differs from an adult only in how they are wired or how many of the initial states have been set. Blaming a cpu but not a shift register for outputting zero rather than one doesn't make sense. Humans are not some magical little gods ourselves or do you have evidence to

Not particularly. A person's actions may not reflect the environment. Look at immature children who act without any perceptible motivation. Even if the actions do, that person has discretion to act how he chooses. Comparing that person to a device that accepts and processes input does not reflect the human capability for independent thought.

1 point

I see no reason why there can not be more than one "text".

There are single beliefs pertaining to whether something is wrong, but multiple interpretations regarding each belief.

Take for instance: abortion, there are numerous moral systems in place.

Not really. One side says that it is right, while the other disagrees. That debate occurs within the same moral arena, but it is viewed from different lenses.

1 point

Our arguments demonstrate similarities but we do not support the same perspectives provided as options in this debate.

1 point

The entire Christian religion is built upon a system of punishment and reward, it is truly hard for me to see that a Christian can simply over look this entire system.

I am not saying that this system would be ignored if a Christian were to see someone in need of aid and decide to intervene (as an example). However, it is possible that this Christian could decide to become involved as a result of a desire to help rather than be rewarded.

Does that mean that an atheist who sees a crime being committed and intervenes with the knowledge that he could be compensated (a corporate whistle-blower, perhaps) therefore does not exhibit the same level of morality as if this potential renumeration did not exist?

i find that the atheists are moral for simply better reasons,

What makes this more beneficial?

but if they dont have a conscious or sub-conscious thought of their religion during their actions then they aren't very devout.

If a Christian were to rescue someone who is being robbed at gunpoint, do you think that he would consider the reward? Assuming that he has the courage to intervene, the adrenaline alone is enough to eliminate any thought that deviates from the situation at hand.

Furthermore, it is possible for people to take action simply because they want to provide aid. In fact, it is very possible for an atheist to contribute to charity in order to feel positive about it (self-reward), or, if he is a public figure, to use that as a means to acquire publicity, so that negates the notion that atheists are or can be completely selfless with regard to morality.

1 point

The interpretation can be altered, not the original "text."

Various belief systems may offer their own translation of morality, such as how morals to be applied, but at that point it becomes a matter of ethics, not morals, and such it is irrelevant to this discussion.

1 point

These morals consist of a standards that have been recognized by individuals throughout history, with the obvious exceptions of various psychopaths. These people would recognize that killing someone without provocation or justification is immoral (it would most likely elicit guilt). These are instilled into people from birth, not developed as a belief system by children and adolescents as they ponder the surrounding world. In addition, modern neuroscience is revealing that there is a connection between brain activity and and morality, in a manner that opposes the claim that people are completely responsible for their own moral beliefs.

1 point

This assumes that those who are religious conduct actions with the afterlife in mind. However, you seem to suggest that atheists are selfless when being charitable, as they are not considering a later reward or punishment. However, is it not possible that a Christian could act in a selfless way, disregarding the later consequences?

1 point

Christians are more likely to do something good because of a law, or external creed, etc.

They are just following the rules, which isn't necessarily moral in itself.

People are generally convinced by the laws because of the potential negative repercussions caused by disobeying them.

In fact, those who are religious feel that it is an obligation to provide aid or charity simply because that can positively benefit the ones receiving said aid.

Thus if a christian does an action, and an atheist does the same action we may conclude that the atheist's behavior has a higher likelihood of being moral, or in accordance with his morality, then a christian who may be doing it simply because it is expected by the creeds and rules of his religion.

That assumes that the motivation behind actions will affect the morality, which is false. Actions can be categorized as moral or immoral. As such, based on an objective standard, two identical acts in a scenario such as the one you describe would be equally moral or immoral.

1 point

They paid into social security, they should get what they paid out.

People who have payed into it so far should, but plans must be developed to compensate for the upcoming Social Security insolvency crisis.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to stop new people from paying into it, and find an alternative way to pay for those who already have.

Private retirement accounts funded by Social Security payments are one solution.

After social security is done with, people should be educated enough that they can provide for their own retirement.

Agreed.

1 point

If people are prudent with their financial resources prior to retirement, that is unnecessary.

1 point

It will have no negative effect on the indigenous fauna, in addition to contributing to our overall fossil fuel independence.

1 point

It is 100% of GDP. As spending plans demonstrate that the debt will increase substantially, one must consider the threat of a default and the resulting impact on the economy.

1 point

It is approximately 100% of GDP. As spending increases, this creates a problem because it is possible that the U.S. government could default, in which case interest rates would increase, and as an overall effect the economy will be negatively impacted to a significant extent.

2 points

It was justified, as the regime there had proven weapons of mass destruction and as such constituted a direct threat to the United States.

1 point

Allow me to clarify. I was referring to such boundaries as laws and ethics. Certainly, children who grow up to challenge the status quo are highly beneficial, but that was not in the scope of my previous statement. Challenging immoral authority is a virtue that should be instilled in children.

1 point

it was the thing that everyone said, its impossible, now, with the amount of evidence, the number of evolutionists grow every single day.

Aside from the notion that one cannot proceed beyond the first phases of an evolutionary development and still be compatible with natural selection, there are other issues. For instance, as the first cells developed, there would have been two central requirements: information (to describe the cellular components) and the ability to read said information. The information would be necessary to create structures that translate such information. So we can establish that the information would have proceeded these structures. However, the information would be useless without the ability to read it. In that is a sizeable problem.

Also, consider the Cambrian explosion. Over a relatively small period, compared to the generally accepted evolutionary timeline, the majority of phyla recognized by scientists rather rapidly appeared. This has been acknowledged by evolutionists as a potential problem with their theory.

For example - creationism started with the concept that the lord created our entire world, with all the creatures in it in 6 days, resting on the seventh, correct? now, since that time, the idea has changed, now creationists believe that the world was simply kicked into motion by some higher power. but i ask you sir, who created your higher power? or what i should say.

Creationism as a general belief refers to the notion that a higher power created the universe and the life contained in it, not necessarily the belief in Young-Earth creationism.

The idea of a creator suggests that said being was not influenced by natural laws. However, I am attempting to dispute the merits of the theory of evolution, not debate the finer points of creationism.

Another question could be: from where did the universe originate? I seek to find a scientific solution to the questions that have been raised in this debate, and it seems that evolution does not provide the answers.

3 points

It does not possess the nuances and indeed quality of classical music. However, this is a subjective debate.

1 point

It is appropriate, as it reflects the general general belief in the United States that a higher power exists and in no way is meant to cause controversy among those who do not believe in God.

1 point

If you built it, you caused it.

Not really. To utilize the previous example, the virus was not created by the computer's designer and as such the blame does not fall on the builder. One could not reasonably accuse HP of responsibility for Conficker, despite its influence on the consumer computer industry.

So what you are saying is that Morally acceptable options could still be harmful ones? For in order for god to maintain his omnibenevolence the granting of such a choice between harm and "morally acceptable options" would have to be considered morally acceptable itself but isn't granting such a thing harmful in the same way as a parent granting their young child a knife to play with is harmful?

No, I was referring in general to the concept of people's ability to choose between moral and immoral actions. I first had to gauge whether you believe in the concept of universal morality.

The metaphor of the child being permitted to engage in dangerous activity is different than the dynamics between the entities this overall discussion. As a society, one would recognize that we have to capability to make informed decisions. These can be categorized as "moral" or "immoral." An atheist rejects the notion of a deity, and as such you might understand that people act according to their choices rather than in manner that suggests that they are being controlled.

Consequently, this indicates that we are to blame for our choices, rather than God.

2 points

Not yet. A larger infrastructure must first be developed for support, applications (like Microsoft Office), and dependence on the command line should be decreased if users are to gravitate toward Linux.

2 points

Not as much as it is believed. In fact, technology implemented in media allows faster communication and information retrieval (consider this website). Also, consider medical technology. It has enabled many to live when conditions would have prevented that prior to the introduction of said technologies.

2 points

I prefer the quality associated with Mac OS X. The UNIX kernel has numerous advantages over the Windows NT kernel.

2 points

It provides several tools to ensure effective communication not just between individuals but organizations and government figures.

2 points

Being omnipotent does not mean that a being actually has caused the action(s) in question. It means that said being has the capability to do so.

That is like saying that just because you have built a computer that you are to blame for a virus that infects it and then spreads to other computers.

As humans with the ability to make choices, we have the capability to choose harmful options or, on the other hand, morally acceptable options.

1 point

That assumes that reciting the Pledge leads to respect for the government. Rather, it promotes a sense of curiosity and possibly respect for the nation and its republican system.

1 point

It's not an intensive task like a chore that could, as you say, create anger.

I would posit that the Pledge can be used as a basis in discussions such as those in civics classes. It doesn't necessarily have to occur directly before or after the recitation, but could be used during pertinent classes. The concept of debates in school is not new. In fact, this website incorporates features that enable schools to conduct debates and practice online.

1 point

The US is the only Western nation that does not have some form of public care option or State run healthcare, and every Western nation and several 2nd and 3rd world countries have better healthcare than the US according to every poll, study, and expenditure analysis not directly funded by Insurance companies in America.

The United States already have limited public health care in the form of Medicare, RomneyCare, CHIP, and other institutions, with other examples.

It is very good that it is not a universal system. There are certainly issues with private health care. These can be remedied with the proper solutions. Just because the polls that are conducted by agencies with an agenda does not mean that they accurately reflect reality.

When healthcare costs are broken down to per person, per person in the US we spend more than twice as much as the second country, the UK.

This could be construed as a reflection of quality in the health care systems. There are numerous reports of extreme waiting times for rather conventional treatments.

Also, why do so many dignitaries travel to the United States to receive treatment? There is no reason to do so if their own health care systems are superior and cost-efficient.

The only thing stopping us from switching is a vast marketing that tricks people like you, and the millions insurance spends on lobbyists to keep everyone dumb and scared of healthcare that actually works.

That's odd. The health care reform law passed. If the entrenched insurance elite are capable of preventing that, one would assume that they would have done so.

1 point

Not necessarily. Look at waiting times for basic procedures in countries like the U.K. and Canada. They are much longer than in the United States. Also, consider the cost issues associated with the health care systems in said countries and the conditions in hospitals.

That demonstrates that it most certainly does not work.

1 point

The concept of free will suggests that people will be able to choose evil if they wish, without every action being regulated.

2 points

It causes people (namely students) to feel, at least, respect toward the nation when they are required to recite the Pledge. Also, teachers can start discussions regarding said recitation and create an atmosphere of political curiosity, particularly as the quality of civic discussion in the U.S. has decreased.

1 point

The quotes in the description hinted at the possibility that it was not completely serious.

4 points

It can encourage patriotism and even political discussion, so the answer to the question is "yes."

1 point

I had considered the possibility that there is some humor involved.

1 point

A personal form of transportation in a manner similar to a car, even if it is drastically altered by advances in technology, will almost certainly exist in the future.

1 point

Morality is objective in that there are universally accepted standards pertaining to it. Ethics is the interpretation of said moral standards, and as such that is what is subjective.

1 point

The economy is the most important issue among those that society faces today. The environment is not a cause of problems, nor are there any legitimate problems associated with it currently, and pursuing policies related to it is a superfluous use of resources.

2 points

It depends on the person and the stage in life. I will assume that the parents in any following scenarios are competent and capable, in addition to be willing to make sacrifices to provide quality parenting.

Strict parenting will ensure that children develop within certain guidelines and that they know what boundaries exist in society. This can help maintain their safety. However, there will almost always be a curiosity about the world that must be carefully monitored and possibly satiated, so relaxing the regulations can also have a benefit.

1 point

As a coincidence, yes. However, atheists will not profess to follow the universal moral standards that are accepted by society. Rather, they interpret them. As such, they do not follow their own morals, but rather interpretations of those.

1 point

Physicists have isolated limited methods of traveling to the past, but no practical means have been developed.

1 point

how about countless books proving it?

That assumes that the people writing the books are correct and that they even considered pursuing scientific evidence to the contrary.

a judge concluded that he had no evidence and was not even educated in the topic.

If he was not educated, that disproves the notion that he had the expertise to accurately represent creationists in court.

darwinists dont believe that the human eye was simply evolved to in one giant leap, we believe that through eons of time and small incremental changes and natural selection, we have arrived where we are today.

Why would the eye begin to develop in the first place? Even if it began to evolve, why would any adaptations contribute to its creation? The answer is that they would not, as the first steps produce no useful structure and consequently they violate natural selection. Before you answer with "mutations," remember that mutations do not add to information, but rather they alter, indeed they corrupt currently existing information. There is no reason to believe that the information for an eye (in the form of DNA) began to exist before it began to physically develop. For this evolution to occur, there would have been a requirement for coordination, but, biologically, this "blueprint" would never have developed.

2 points

There is no reason that such a requirement should exist. The anonymity of the person altering the number of votes should be protected, and it is very possible that said person has made his disagreement obvious.

1 point

There are moral beliefs that are accepted (almost) universally, even if they are not implemented according to the parameters of such a doctrine.

Ethics refers to the interpretation of morals to specific events and settings. That is what individuals could tailor to themselves, but the title of this debate suggests morality, not ethics.

1 point

This debate's description suggests that there is more rationality elsewhere in the universe and that the mentally compromised are sent to Earth. There is no evidence to support this claim, and as such it must be disputed.

2 points

That depends on the conflict. There are instances of tyrants and psychopaths who are and were unaffected by reason and diplomacy, and, in that instance, war is necessary to save lives and democratic principles.

1 point

Given the variables in both planetary environments and the potential life forms that could be encountered, there is a distinct possibility that extraterrestrial life could exist.

2 points

Yes. The change in victims and perpetrators does not alter the severity of the impact that such violence could have.

1 point

No. A sufficient privatized system can eliminate any issues associated with health care. While there are problems with the American system, the disadvantages involving government-run health care are far more numerous. It shifts the costs for health care services to all taxpayers. As population, and, consequently, costs, increase, that increases the tax burden.

Furthermore, a government-managed system is quite inefficient, as evidenced by those in countries like the U.K. and Canada. Ensuring that free market principles are maintained is the superior option.

1 point

In and of itself, no. As long as taxes are not repressive and if the public is properly represented, taxation is does not constitute theft.

1 point

It is a goal of science to pursue the truths that underly our universe. As such, it is important to consider whether evolutionary theory is correct. There are numerous issues with said theory. Consider the fact that the steps required to complete a species' evolution could never exceed the first stages. this is because the first stages would produce superfluous structures, and these would be eliminated in the next generation, as required by natural selection.

1 point

There is substantial evidence that explicitly supports the claim that the unborn are indeed life forms, and they should be treated as such. For instance, consider the limited differences between humans and the unborn. The primary one is lack of development. As humans are considered to have moral equality despite their age (and hence development), there is no reason why fetuses should be treated any differently.

2 points

No. There are religions that enable people to retain hope during desperate situations. They provide a moral structure for these people, in addition to fostering charity for those so inclined.

1 point

For some forms of communication between various public figures and organizations, it does have a use, in addition to other social media.

1 point

That is an issue with Linux. Some software, such as Microsoft Office, is not naturally available for Linux without some modification. However, Linux has an advantage in other categories such as security and resource consumption, in addition to the fact that its open-source nature means that constant updates are available for many of the applications and system software on a Linux computer.

1 point

Who says an American living in Mexico isn't living in an English speaking community, or bothers/needs to speak to any one in Spanish.

That does not change the fact that as, for instance, a Spanish-speaking community grows in the United States it will have to interact with the general population. That communication is be simplified if both sides understand one another.

Also, they could just have a full time translator, for many immigrants their children who grow up in the country they live in act as translators for them.

That is nullified if the children learn the language. In fact, if, as you posit, it is not necessary to learn the national language, why would the children do so?

Forcing them to learn something they don't need to because on rare occasions it may be useful and less annoying for the natives is an unnecessary infringement on people and an unnecessary burden on tax payers, law enforcers, etc.

It is simply a matter of prudence and practicality. A person moving to another nation would first have to learn the most commonly spoken language so that he could survive there. If you are going to live in a country, especially over the long term or long periods, it is almost inevitable that you will have to communicate with the natives beyond the conversational requirements of a tourist.

lack of facilities, lack of enough qualified teachers, Lack of legal precedent,difficult enforcement,testing, inefficiency(illegal immigrants), raising the cost of legal immigration etc.

There are already substantial resources that are dedicated to immigration in the U.S. Many of these are redundant, and those elements can be applied to ensuring that English is learned by all immigrants. Indeed, it is not necessary to teach in a classroom setting. There is software that can be distributed to immigrants or that they can purchase themselves that will allow them to gain an understanding of our language.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]