CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic


RSS GeneralLee

Reward Points:134
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
87%
Arguments:310
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

It's not a secret. And you shouldn't abuse a bug. So stop doing that, it's kinda pissing me off.

1 point

"In regards to a woman having sex with multiple partners, you said...."

Thank you for proving me right. I never said that it doesn't affect the guy. You just inferred that.

"You didn't actually, you sidestepped it."

No, you did. You turned it into some messed up debate about the freedom of speech.

"I don't even know how to respond to this."

Just like I really don't know how to respond to you saying that mark is kind without any proof.

"These two sentences seem contradictory."

Nope, mark is having people gang up on me. That ain't kind at all.

1 point

On a quick google search, here is what I found.

1 point

"I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?)"

Yes I do. Referring to an earlier post:

No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.

After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution.

I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours?"

LOL. Man, let me tell you, the price of college tuition has exploded in the past 20 years. According to Times Magazine, the price of college went up like 700%. I try to get money anyway I can...within the bounds of the law of course (I don't run moonshine......).

"The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter."

But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points:

One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.

Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.

Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?

"I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable."

Doubt it, I bet you feel uncomfortable reading the Bible. Yet I can read Darwin's Origins of Species without breaking a sweat. Remember the questioning of Jesus by Pontious Pilate:

John 18:33-38

33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian.

"Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated."

Really, didn't some famous scientist say that to believe in Christianity was "unthinkable"; so he wouldn't even study to see if it could be true? Wasn't that Hawking?

"It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument."

You use this argument anyways when you try to explain where the matter from the Big Bang came from. Scientists say it just was "always there".

"This is equivocation on your part. You're using the term ape and pig as if they are singular species. Ape refers to a group of primates. I have already said before that humans have a common ancestry with every single other species."

So this proves evolution how?

"The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material"

Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form.

"As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related?"

Without the Big Bang theory, there is no theory of evolution. So if you are willing to give that up, you might as well convert to Christianity.

"Remember where the scientists are all in agreement that the conditions for early earth in the Miller Urey experiment were likely wrong? Did it ever occur to you that if they had simulated the correct conditions, that a high enough amount of amino acids would have formed?"

So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions?

"Do not confuse abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The latter of which has far more evidence and is amongst the most comprehensive of theories in science."

All right, since I'm running out of time tonight, I'll give you that for now. But I want to return to this point later.

No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids."

Well, that's all fine and great, but you still haven't touched on the fact that all life nowadays uses left handed amino acids, and right handed ones are lethal.

1 point

"the majority of women have positive feelings about one night stands"

They do?

According to Professor Campbell, although women do not rate casual sex positively, the reason they still take part in it may be due to the menstrual cycle changes influencing their sexual motivation.

Yeah, that's positive feeling alright.

"Secondly, I think it shows your sexist and low opinion of women when you say that casual sex "destroys" women, while the men walk out unscathed."

I did? Show me where I said that! And don't not reply to this argument either. Show me where I said that! If there is one thing I can't tolerate, it's someone who will falsely accuse someone of something they are not guilty of.

I already covered the third argument below, so I will move on to the last. Mark has more kindness in his finger than I have in my whole body? On day one, I disagreed with one of his arguments and he immediately declared me an enemy. It wasn't even a strong disagreement, but NOPE, I'm an enemy anyways. Wow, he's sure kind. Got a heart of gold. Not even iamdavidh is that "kind", and we've fought for hours. In fact Mark was my first enemy declaration ever. And I have never even debated with the second enemy declaration, so I assume Mark told him to do that. So keep telling yourself lies; you are just delusional.

1 point

It ain't a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree"? It ain't Merry Christmas, it's Happy Holidays? They say, "Oh, you offend atheists when you say things like that, so we will censor the freedom of speech and say YOU CAN'T SAY THOSE THINGS!"

Or how about abortion? The can say that it's just a bunch of cells you are killing. There nothing wrong with that, but when I try to hold up a sign with a picture of an abortion, I have to take it down because it "offends" people?

Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb.

1 point

"The United States is not a police state, it is also not a socialist country. To say it is to either of those statements is to vastly exaggerate the issue. Small steps towards becoming a socialist state or a police state does not equal automatically becoming one."

I didn't mean that we are socialist, I meant we are becoming socialist. Small strokes felled great oaks.

"And then it goes on to say that the student put some book cover on another book (I assume school book? If its not a school book then its legal) saying something about god or the bible. The school should have the right to prohibit certain book covers, including religious ones, from being on school books."

And yet I've seen ones promoting Islam or Hinduism and that is somehow OK??? Why is Christianity book covers bad, but ones of other religions OK?

"They are only minor variations in opinions. They have the ballpark figure correct, they are not ambiguous. Now, if one state said the speed limit was 20 and another said 120, then that would be ambiguous and make zero sense. Do you think they just made up a number that would be safe for interstates?"

Your statement makes zero sense. There is an obvious safety difference between 20 and 120. There is no safety difference between 65 and 75. No, they don't make up the numbers, but they plan for speeding tickets. See, tickets are a huge source of income. So they set up speed traps in order to make money off them. For example, I have a highway that's 65 MPH. For about 1/4 mile, it drops to 55 MPH for no reason then goes back up to 65 MPH. And every time I go by there at night, there is a cop sitting there without fail because they know they will make money off the ticket. They can raise the limit to 75, but they make too much money off the tickets to do that.

"You're willing to take away a woman's rights all for the veil of protecting them."

Rights based off of what??? The Constitution? Which is based off of what? What is the basis for your moral theory?

In regards to morals, how does it compare?"

Morals start off as being something small, then corrupt and turn into something destructive.

1 point

Russia never signed the treaty. That's why they were our enemy during the cold war years. But what I do not understand is, why can't we ask permission from the other nations that signed the treaty to use the nuke to stop the oil well? It makes sense to me. Lets say we have two people Bob and Jim. Bob gets a contract offer from Jim to do some work. Later, Bob doesn't want to do that work. Bob asks Jim if he could be relieved of his contract and Jim agrees. Since both parties agreed, no legal infringement was caused. So I don't understand why we couldn't do the same thing. Sure it's a law, but if everyone including those who made it says it's OK, then we should have been able to do it. Like all laws, they can be modified or repealed to fit a certain situation.

1 point

" No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material."

No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed.

"Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty."

Yes, but the definition of moron is "dull witted". It's comparable to delusional.

"Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy."

I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more.

"We already know that it happened, we just do not know how."

Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim).

"This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue."

Why not?

"Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes."

What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes.

"It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where."

Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted.

"all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation."

Sounds like something you did. Like with my argument on Polystrate fossils, or statistical probability for evolution. In fact, there is tons of questions that evolution can't answer. Like The Lithium Problem. According to the Big Bang, there should be 66% MORE Lithium-7 in the universe. Or what about Missing Antimatter? The Big Bang created more matter than anti-matter. This imbalance doesn't fit any evolutionist theory. Yeah, like I said, you believe in evolution despite the scientific contradictions.

And now, to fix your complaint with my copy/paste argument, here is what I propose in my own words.

One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.

Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.

Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?

1 point

So then what did Russian do when they used four nukes to stop their oil spills? Break the treaty and not care?

GeneralLee has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Republican
Country: United States
Religion: Christian-other
Education: Some College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here