- 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.
Yes, it would, but only in the technical sense that if you eliminated ANY particular race from America it would be safer, because naturally, people of every race commit crime. I think what you're trying to bait in this question is to what magnitude would America be a safer place? I don't think we can accurately guess that, but statistics show that African-Americans are convicted more per capita than any other race for crime in the US. This is more correlated to socioeconomics than it is to some innate "problem" with African-Americans. But if we're going to be honest and offensive here, there is a cultural of ignorance and anti-intellectualism that unfortunately exists in African-American communities in the US that contributes to this problem as well.
If Africa was a body part on the human body, it would either be a festering asshole or an armpit that hasn't been washed in a few centuries.
Seeing as it is a black hole for humanitarian aid and the leaders of most countries there are more interested in filling their pockets with money rather than filling the bloated bellies of their people with food, I say the chances of it becoming a world power are about as likely as a retard teaching physics to Steven Hawking.
I think it's retarded in this respect, because at least Nathan exercised some cunning and some higher level thought processes. Corky was like just a lovable dumb ass. Now, while there certainly isn't anything lovable about Black Supremacist Theology, it surely is dumb as dog shit.
I make Flu Vaccines for a living at Medimmune Inc, and you try and tell me I'm ignorant of basic biology.
I don't care. And based on what you've written, I'm seriously speculative of this assertion.
Let me explain biology to you. Biology is the study of life, not the study of evolution. Biology if studied correctly and used in the right manner can be used to create new life and new creations for the benefit for humanity.
Wrong. Evolution is a study within biological science. The study of life includes the way life changes. The fact you are disputing this very well-known generally accpeted concept is why I seriously question your credentials.
Flu vaccines are created by injecting eggs with the virus, then retracted from the egg and grown in a flask for approx a week. After growing it in the flask you use that for innoculum for a larger vessel called a bio-reactor for another week. After this stpe you recover the vaccine through filtration and centrifuge then it is sent to be sterilized and bottled for human consumption.
We keep the virus frozen at -80 degrees celsius so we can thaw it and use it as many times as necessary to ake new vaccines. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and have yet had to collect a new virus, because the flu has 95% of the rhinovirus properties it had the previous year. The only thing that may change is the strength at which we make the vaccine.
So what? Is there a point that is supposed to follow? You freeze cells at a level where cellular movement is impossible and don't see a change in the virus...no kidding. Thank you for that observation, Captain Obvious.
So, when you say I'm ignorant of basic biology think again. That's why I feel so strongly about creationism. I live and breathe it everyday. That's why when people talk about evolution, I want them to prove it. Prove we came from an animal and not dust, and if we came from an animal; why aren't more animals evolving into humans. I mean I work with bacteria everyday and they're not evolving into different bacteria, the only way they change is if I force them to change by either manipulating their eenvironment or disecting them and programming them to produce something different.
I didn't say your were ignorant of biology, but your words make it appear to be so. You're asking for proof of the origin of life. Again, you are the type of person that misunderstands the question. Evolution isn't about the origin of life, and it's about how life changes. Abiogenesis is the question regarding the origin of life.
It takes manipulation for something to change, it doesn't just happen.
No shit. Heat, pressure, and other environemental factors contribute to evolution. Creationism is the argument "stuff just happens."
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood and misphrased arguments. Evolution we know occurs. We have observed it under microscopes at the molecular level and tracked it in earth science. Those who try to argue "intelligent design" are really arguing abiogenesis. How the universe was created and whether organisms evolve are two completely separate inquiries and have nothing to do with one another. One is a biological question, the other is a physics/metaphyscial question.
If you believe in creationism aka the Adam and Eve story...you're a fucking moron.