CreateDebate


XBetzy's Waterfall RSS

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

God has created milk from blood and blood from milk.it is commented in Quran .you can scientifically prove it.

Then do so, prove to me how you can change milk into blood. Also comments in a bronze age piece of contradictory literature is not proper evidence not to mention scientific evidence.

God has created clouds in similar way as he created mountains.

Also pure asumption, currently we have scientific data that accurately explains the formation of mountains and clouds and the processes are completely dissimilar.

I believe that many branches of science are started on the basis of prophecies

Philosophy, they originated from philosophy, and we now have the most accurate way of dissemination false information from true, as well as irrelevant to the topic.

xBetzy(123) Clarified
1 point

3th

Thirth WTF is THIRTH?!? 3rd good sir .

xBetzy(123) Clarified
1 point

We do our own thing and we are not bound down by the conservative ways of society! Yeah!

Anarchy? LOL

2 points

No .

1 point

TEXAS!! .

1 point

The purpose of religion is to not change that's why the Qur'an has all the same extremists following it and same thing with any other holy book. People may change Ideas don't, they are exchanged for new ones.

xBetzy(123) Clarified
1 point

No, before medical abortions were practiced that was how you did it. You threw yourself down some stairs or well yah know with the coat hanger.

xBetzy(123) Clarified
1 point

They did Break international laws, and imagine if our government was using chemical weapons against us. Wouldn't you want someone to do something?

1 point

so the US is God? Sweet... .

xBetzy(123) Clarified
1 point

Except the actual blast site will just melt you regardless of radiation resistance.

0 points

Nope, the holy books have yet to predict anything that supersedes our current understanding of the universe and they will be hard pressed to do so in the future. Not to mention holy books are rarely historically accurate not to mention scientifically illiterate.

1 point

What you don't think the human race is becoming so big it's not becoming unsustainable?

Well in terms of energy sources, we are unsustainable, however with food we are sustainable, there is enough food to feed everyone in the world a decent amount, however due to unequal distribution of food many parts of the world have chronic issues with undernourishment and malnutrition. But if companies were to make sizable donations in growing local businesses for food production in said countries the world would be much better off.

That is where animals and humans differ our brains allow us to problem solve with current materials and think into the future a measurable amount. Deer however dire their situation will continue breeding until all the available roughage is depleted and the population collapses.

1 point

Sure but any intervention afterward can be discredited. Deism not Christianity

1 point

Stability is the main issue when eliminating animals, most groups of animals become to big to sustain themselves in a defined area and the population collapses. Not so with Humans

2 points

Wel done scooby doo .

1 point

But besides that the Y chromosome is part of the genes that are exchanged you dolt.

No the Y chromosome houses the genes, you DOLT. Genes are the sections of DNA which is organised into chromatids, then doubled into chromosomes.

Look around you the proof is literally all around you.

Proof of evolution via natural selection, proof of abiogenesis, big bang, nothing on God being an influence at all. Your holy books aren't even credible often blatantly contradicting our historical understanding of time periods. As for any claims of possible divine intrusion the answer can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmxAGhC-gLU

But they can't change into other cells like the scientists in the article are trying to make happen.

Stem-cells?

1 point

Before I start diging up proof, you should prove the universe never began and allways was.

The cyclical theory surmises that there are two flat branes collide repeatedly for eternity creating "big bangs" every time that happens.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

Secondly, God by definition is the best explanation for the birth of the universe.

That is assuming that the universe had a beginning, and no particles pop into existence all the time, the gravitron for example. And God is simply not a valid answer to the creation of the universe because it tells you that the universe is here, but nothing as to how that came to be.

1 point

No i'm not you have yet to provide any evidence that god exists, until you do you must remain in the negative position of agnosticism.

1 point

If there are two maximally great beings, then which one maximally great?

Both, all, none, that is why there is no evidence for maximally great beings.

However, you must keep in mind that a maximally great being would be maximally personal, which means that it would reach out to it's creations.

of such reaches there is no evidence, I point you to any video about logical fallacies by AronRa.

The only ones are the Abrahamic religions, which means it must be one of them.

Hinduism as well, apparently all of their gods are aspects of a single god Shakti. However there is no evidence for any of these so called "gods" either Abrahamic or otherwise.

1 point

i'm having a little trouble understanding what company would provide financial aide to individuals with such a high risk of no reciprocation on the recipients part. I understand that insurance companies do it, however they "threaten" you with higher rates, or non-coverage on claims. Either way threats are made, and financial bankruptcy is no way to live.

1 point

There can only be one maximally great being.

Prove it

And if you want to say that one of these unicorns is maximally great, then what you are doing is simply naming God a unicorn.

Exactly, I'm showing you that your argument can be used for anything, even the flying spaghetti monster, which has more evidence than any god.

1 point

The genes of the male mix with the genes of the female that's how reproduction works

Very good, would you like a cookie?

And of course genes have sexual concentrations its the genes that determine the gender. God did create this system because god created everything.

For the record the word connotation was used not concentration and the presence of the Y chromosome determines gender you dolt.

God did create this system because god created everything.

Prove it.

It's un natural and won't work because cells don't work that way.

Conjugation? Cells transferring genes through contact.

1 point

That does not follow: they are not maximally great.

Prove that they are not maximally great.

1 point

The universe had a begining undisputedly.

There is no proof that the universe had a beginning.

There for it had a creator

Logical fallacy. Just because something exists doesn't mean a supernatural space wizard willed it into existence.

Now you might ask "then what created God?" well, he allways was and allways will be, therefor he doesnt have a begining.

The same can be said for the universe, god is completely unnecessary.


1 of 6 Pages: Next >>

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