CreateDebate


Rob0915's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Rob0915's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

It would be no more unreasonable than disbelieving in the law of gravity, theory of osmosis or genetic engineering. As outrageous as it would sound for someone to say "I don't believe in gravity", if you have tangible, replicable evidence for the contrary, then you have a good opinion. If you simply don't "believe" in them, then you look like a fool.

Evolution is occurring - dogs evolved from wolves, dinosaurs into birds, large cats (like lions) into small, domestic cats. Genetic modification and evolution go hand in hand - if you breed a group of dogs with different dogs (shepherds with pit bulls), you will be inducing directional selection, a method of evolution. Natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, isn't actually about "adapting" as it would seem when Giraffe's stretch their necks for leaves and eventually become completely long necked. Rather those with long necks were able to reproduce, passing along their genotypes.

So yes, all evidence points to the living primates (humans, gorillas, chimps, orangutans, baboons) as evolving from a common ancestor - meaning we didn't evolve from each other, rather we are distant cousins, part of a family with the same "grandpa".

In summation, if you have evidence (IE you've found through break through research that humans are not at all related to chimps or the other living primates OR you have arranged an interview with God to discuss how humans got here, you will be able to state that you do not subscribe to the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you can claim ignorance using the "un-educated" excuse, and it would be "reasonable", but foolish.

rob0915(60) Clarified
1 point

Allow me to further elaborate,

I don't dispute your argument - rather I feel that it would be even more difficult than described to make inter-galactic contact with another species (assuming this species is even sentient and they are contacting us). I shouldn't have stated that I dispute your point, rather that I wish to clarify it. I have noticed that throughout nature, the strongest species ALWAYS makes it's presence known. People often think that "aliens" will be "above" human morals and ethics. I ask WHY!? Why would they be anything like us!? They would not be C based lifeforms, nor would they (presumably) follow our physical laws. Thus, they probably don't have anything similar to our "morals" or "ethics". Therefore, they would probably make their presence known - especially if they were more advanced than us.

1 point

YESSS!!! In December of 2012, the US security council deemed the US safer from terrorism than most of her allies. Boston Bombings say "NO YOU ARE NOT"!!!

1 point

Take a look around - the world looks flat. It looks as though fields and oceans go on for thousands of miles. Until Copernicus hypothesized the world was round and later Galileo adopted this thinking (and was forced to relinquish his statement by the Church) the entire world simply didn't give it much thought. Think about it right now - we have some pictures from space and everybody says the world is round but do you know that for a fact? Have you been to space and stared at the earth? Have you ever, really, given it much thought? Neither did the majority of people from the pre-rennaisance, except a select few.

rob0915(60) Clarified
1 point

I agree with the facts. But like I said, add some ketchup to the whole mess - it would be even harder than what you're describing. There is no known source of energy that can approach light speed and even at light speed it would take many, many years of space travel with current technology to find even a bacterium. And I doubt they would come just to stop by for gas, some chips and a gatorade. Unless that is exactly what they stopped for ....

1 point

Define scientific (no, don't really. Sarcasm. Learn it). This empirical pursuit is called precursor phenomena, unusual seismological activity leading up to an earthquake. Little cracks and fractures can develop in severely strained rocks and cause tiny earthquakes called foreshocks. Google haicheng, 1975. HOWEVER, contemporary geologists are unable to develop defined, recurrent theories or instruments that can predict these fluctuating phenomena. BUT there are SOME signs that can indicate the onset of an earthquake.

Stay in school, kids.

1 point

But tied and totally dependent on your investments is freedom? Hmmm ...

rob0915(60) Clarified
1 point

The fastest extraterrestrial probe we HAD 40 years ago.

Point 2, I dispute. Let's add some ketchup as well - be creative. Agree on everything else.

2 points

Studies (many,many) have shown that child marriages (or arranged marriages) last longer and people are more happy than those in contemporary mutually-exclusive marriages.

Not to mention, the financial security of the family is planned and employed before either of the parties have their first job. Here in the "free world", the majority of parents struggle to make ends meet.

1 point

Rant of the Week by Rob0915

Absolutely NOT! Case Study 101 - The United Kingdom. The tribespeople of Great Britain "owned" it before those nasty Romans invaded. Nasty Romans killed many, raped more and "stole" those "natives'" lands. Do you see the Italians forking over money these days so that the Brits can go to school, not pay taxes, engage in substance abuse seminars? What about the oodles of land the natives get!? Italians don't give money and the friggin Brits don't ask!!!!

What about all the poor white men that were scalped? Those poor, poor innocent white farmers and their wives and their poor innocent children. All raped, scalped. Their villages burned. What separates the natives from the european-americans? AH! I know!!! The natives complain more!!!

And this funny business about being raped in residential schools - that sucks. My true, un-adulterated condolences. However, This is simply no excuse - those that were abused in government facilities - sure, they can get away with it. But their grandchildren???!! NO WAY!!! My grandpa saw all sorts of crapola in WWII, shot in the leg, run over by some ridiculous machine and lost a chunk of his toe. Lost a bit of his arm to fire. And he's still farming!!! At the age of 89!!!! Hasn't told me about rape, but he's a man - meaning he doesn't tell his grandson about that crap.

Do I get free education, some thousand acres to hunt like my ancestors? Tax free? NOPE. And yet, some little old lady was raped and abused when she was 5, and she gets all that and more? Again, truly terrible but there are FAR worse things!!! And they've happened to every single race/ethnicity/culture/nation/creature on this planet throughout history. What of the Dinosaurs!!???

They were hit by a comet!!!! We should pay them tribute!!! Our generation should have been there to save them!!!

WHAT entitles the natives to ANYTHING MORE than your average American!!!???? WE ARE ALL EQUALS!!!! END OF STORY!!!

rob0915(60) Clarified
1 point

Mr.B is, in essence, describing the Garden of Eden. Except the whole bit about no religion - instead, lets ban all of that except we shall all be force fed 1 single religion for the remainder of time. Sounds like fun - sign me up.

1 point

I am an avid reader of Gandhi's works

Good for you.

that is the most perverse interpretation of his beliefs I have seen in a while.

You should get out more.

Nowhere does he say that physical violence should be resorted to.

How many times do I have to quote this man? "An eruption must have it's vent" - read it to your grandmother, read it out loud, make it into a song. He is saying that the Indian people must fight AMONGST themselves. Read it and weep.

1 point

Most definitely a threat to international security. The Canadian Forces are ready for international disputes in the near future, expecially in regards to North Korea. As are the US Forces, I'm certain.

1 point

They are both true terrorists

Arab nations dispute Israeli government; Egyptian president Nasser called for it's destruction in the early 1960's. Israel defends it's country from Arabian terrorists.

One of them is in breach of international law for stealing land, creating a racist apartheid regime, and generally behaving like a rogue state, but we're not allowed to say that cause they haven't been labelled part of the axis of evil by the US.

Israel does not kill civilians, as the PLO did during the Munich summer Olympics in 1972 or invade countries that are not posing immediate threats to National security (as Lebanese, Palestinean and Egyptian forces have). Even though Israel may be taking land from other nations, they are not murdering or torturing civilians. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion - sounds like Palestine.

Therefore, the true "terrorists" are the Arabs. Arabians kill cvilians, Israel simply extends it's boundaries and defends itself.

3 points

That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”

"It is possible that those who are forced to observe peace under their pressure would fight after their withdrawal. There can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption; it must have its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so. Unless we realize this, we cannot have Home Rule ... We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not want the tyranny of either English rule or Indian rule" (Indian Home Rule; 1909).

Political unrest is not peace, sir. Regardless of whether India's fight for home rule was or wasn't a "war", there was still conflict. Gandhi suggested that India "vent" by means of a civil war.

Peace is achievable by war. If I remeber history correctly (which I do), the end of World War II marked peace for the world. I don't think WWII was fought with water guns or rainbows, it was a war and it achieved peace.

The question is not should we achieve peace through war, but can we. The answer is yes, we can and no we shouldn't.

1 point

Israel has been kicked off "their" land for the past 2 000 years. They may be taking it back, or they may be encroaching on land that is not theirs. To us, terrorism is wrong, but to the terrorists it is right.

Please read the entire argument before you dispute it. My main point (if it was unclear to you) was stated at the beginning of my argument: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Regardless of who's land it was or is, the true "terrorist" in this case is not clear. However, because Israel has been subject to much oppression in the past, it is unlikely that they are considered the terrorists, even though they very well could be.

It is a matter of perception, not definition. Israel's land was taken in the past, now they are taking land from Palestine (who took Israeli territory in the past) and the machine keeps going. Perception dictates who the "terrorist" truly is; notice the quotaition marks around "their land".

3 points

Contrary to what a lot of bigoted Christians and hippy groups like to say, is actually most of the time very humane.

"More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 95 percent of animals used in experiments—are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted. To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes. Many of these tests are not even required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results; even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to you"

(http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default2.aspx).

1 point

All conscious organisms feel pain, but not all can reason to the same extent. Even within the human species, not all humans can reason, but all can feel pain. Therefore, because pain is equal among all species and all animals, research should not be conducted on animals, unless those researches are willing to test humans as well.

1 point

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Israel has been kicked off "their" land for the past 2 000 years. They may be taking it back, or they may be encroaching on land that is not theirs. To us, terrorism is wrong, but to the terrorists it is right.

3 points

The "evidence" you requested, sir:

1. London's "peppered moth".

2. Genetics, such as: pseudogenes, protein synthesis, endogenous retrovirus' and DNA sequencing.

3. Fossil records, discovered by radiocarbon carbon dating and other methods, which insinuate the "evolution" of humanity from a common ancestor to pongids and other contemporary living primates.

Religion and science can go hand in hand, but the fact of the matter is that humans evolved from a common ancestor to the living primates. Whether "God" had a hand in this, I suppose we will all have to wait and see.

2 points

A "theory" in science is rigorously tested and critiqued. "Theories" in science are never "disproven", only added upon. Newton's theories of relativity were not disproven; Einstein's theory's merely encompassed Newton's with more clarity.

1 point

We cannot witness evolution?

Do you exercise? What happens to an individuals appearance after they've exercised for 15 minutes a day, 5 days a week for 1 month?

This is called adaptation, which is a mechanism of evolution It is astoundingly observable.

3 points

Creationism is a belief and therefore has no place in a classroom (except perhaps for a debate, an Anthropology course or other culture oriented class). If an individual wishes to believe that creationism goes hand in hand with evolution then that individual is free to believe that. However, a teacher is responsible for teaching facts, not beliefs. Creationism should definitely be taught, but not in tandem with evolution, so as to compel the student to believe that creationism brought about evolution. They should be taught as separate concepts to human existence.

6 points

Gandhi's suggestions to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war. Gandhi proposed that the Indians rebel against themselves and the British in order to achieve peace and stability in India.

See Mohandas K. Gandhi: Indian Home Rule (1909).


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

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