- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
There's no such thing as a trasncendent moral standard. That's the point. You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence.
There's nothing transcendent or objective about any of that.
God doesn't prove anything. God is a metaphysical concept, the acceptance of which is based on nothing logical whatsoever, but rather pure speculation and thought abstract from any tangible relationship to testable reality.
"God" is not a logical idea to begin with.
There is a famous paradox known as the Omnipotence Paradox which states that omnipotence is self-contradictory when you ask the question "Can God (omnipotent) create a rock that He Himself cannot lift?" This question arises a problem. If God could create such a rock then He would not be able to lift it making it so He would not be omnipotent. If God couldn't create such a rock then He would not be omnipotent because He would not be able to create such a rock. So, is an omnipotent being (such as God) possible?
This isn't a true paradox; it's a semantic paradox. It's like saying if God can't create a black white then he isn't omnipotent. That would be false. But more to the point of the question:
Can (a) God be omnipotent?
Well, first of all, there is no evidence that a God exists, so any logical processes derived from the assumption are purely hypothetical and have no discernable basis in reality. Now that we've got that out of the way, we can play "what colour are the fairies?"
If it were even possible for an a transcendental being to exist, that being would by its definition defy the very laws of matter and energy that are fundamental to our universe as it is. I would cite the anthropic principle here. What doesn't exist within the constraints of existence, is irrelevant to existence, and the conceptual "nothing" is the ultimate misnomer.
But let's go further and assume a God exists. Is that God omnipotent? Well, according to the Bible, yes. The bible has been generally translated to say that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
To quote Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the best one.
It is overwhelmingly more likely that rather than there being an unfalsifiable, unprovable, untestable, invisible God of such monumental and irreconcilable contradictions, instead there is no God at all, and the Bible is nothing but a collection of myths passed down by ignorant ancients.
You're an idiot if you think lowering taxes on corporations incentivises them to increase employment and/or wages.
Lowering corporate tax: gives corporations more disposable income to invest in automation, thereby decreasing the number of workers; increases stock prices and thereby increases the profits held by shareholders, which is only a superficial boost to the economy, meaning it does not benefit the everyman; and gives corporations undue importance in economic policy, taking away focus from what ought to be a democratic system purposed to affect the well-being of the citizen and not the wellbeing of the bottom line of the national balance sheet, per se.
Trickle down economics is a farce.
In the UK, corporate tax was recently cut, along with NHS funding, and welfare spending for the unemployed (which accounts for a paltry 1.2bn per annum, in contrast to the 30+bn in bonuses for bankers per year), and the result is clear:
More people in the UK use charity food banks than ever before; child poverty is at its highest levels in thirty years; the NHS is crumbling under the costs of private contracts and poor government management; thousands have died as a result of having their disabled benefits cut off from them; more people than ever are working in "zero-hour contracts" (effectively stripping employees of all their rights and securities); and the national debt has risen more in the last six years than in the previous twenty.
...... trickle-down economics.
By the way, I use open-source software: not Windows. Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China. The fact that people use a computer built by a corporation, does not mean that they owe that corporation heavy sway in economic policy; nor that the user forfeits his or her rights to oppose corporate greed; nor that heavy taxation on said corporation and/or its highest earners would lead to the end of that technology; nor that being a user of a technological product makes the corporation more important than the citizen who is using their product.
The fact that you consider some lame-ass argument about a private citizen's personal purchases of technology to be above the concepts of corporate responsibility and proportionate duty to society shows just how much of a fucking apple-polisher you really are.
Lich, I appreciate the sentiment, and I agree. But I do think we are going around in circles a bit here. If you genuinely want to consider evolution (it IS the reality of how the divergence of life happened), then start, please, by doing your own research and reading genuine scientific articles backed up by evidence and experiment.
Here are some sources to get you started:
An Index to Creationist's Claims (a lengthy list of rebuttals to claims made by creationists, with works cited at the bottom of each page, along with linkage to other resources and information to back up the rebuttals). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
A beginner's guide to the evidences for evolution: https://
Feel free to carry on, if you have an interest in the topic. I would also suggest learning about DNA and how it is structured, and how complexity in coding means that mass-meiosis inevitably leads to altered code.
There is a sheer insurmountable mountain of evidence and studies and experiments that validate evolution by natural selection, if only you allow yourself to look.
What part of "though [mutation is] not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species." fails to substantiate my point?
I said Differentiate between a species and a specimen. If a specimen of one species develops a beneficial physical characteristic undeveloped in its peers, it will be fundamentally physically different from other specimens of the same species.
If the specimen with the developed beneficial characteristic further mutates another beneficial characteristic, or if the original species does so:
A, Ab, Abc ... or .... A, Ac, Ab.
This can and does continue numerous times, until specimens of the same species share distinctively different traits (black skin, white skin, blue eyes, green eyes, bigger muscles etc etc), though not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species.
But <---- given enough time, these shifts in character lead to specimens which are so fundamentally different from their ancestors that they have difficulty breeding with [the ancestral] species anymore ...
You've taken the first part of this to mean that I agree with you. That's not the case. I am describing here, to you, the process of mutation, selection, and speciation, bearing in mind that it is humankind who apply taxonomic classifications and differentiate between "species". Easier to explain it in a step by step process than to bombard you with jargon.
Assuming that statement is entirely true (regardless of your failure to provide a basis for it), it still doesn't itself substantiate Darwinian Evolution. In order to do so, there must be specific, continuous records of one species developing over time into another, dissimilar species, which is simply not the case.
It most definitely does substantiate (partly at least) evolution by natural selection. If a species which was not present at an earlier time period, becomes present, it must have derived from a species that was there before it. Otherwise, did it pop out of thin air?
For that, I simply direct you to this article: http://www.icr.org/article/
You make yourself look very stupid by posting sources like these. The Institute for Creation Research has not published a single peer-reviewed scientific study or experiment in any scientific journal. It is not an authority on science. This article is tripe. Its author holds a degree in what is essentially building construction, and is a vehement "Young Earth Creationist".
Note that the article contains no sources, no references, no experiments or evidence, nothing. Just the word of a man who believes that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. A man who has been making a career out of misrepresenting scientific findings since 1984.
Please ... disassociate yourself from this crowd if you want to undertake scientific debate.