The universe is an ever-expanding (ergo, moving) object, according to science. Science also speculates that gravity will eventually result in the "Big Crunch," necessarily stopping and then reversing the force of the universe's expansion. Hardly unstoppable or immovable.
Once again, they based it off of the other meaning, "the use or the administering of drugs."
See, side effects like that are why I don't support chemical drugs. But they do (generally speaking) help with the symptoms they're supposed to treat.
No chemical only does one thing, especially when it's ingested. It has to go through the entire bloodstream. Prozac isn't put in your brain directly, so it makes sense for it to have some effect elsewhere in the body.
"the effects of Prozac should only be in the head because that's were Prozac goes to treat depression"
Neither the drug nor your bloodstream can control where it goes. It just disseminates in the body. Prozac doesn't "go" anywhere specifically because your bloodstream is an unfiltered system.
I am not supporting evolution in the slightest. I'm just correcting misinformation and telling you the evolutionist standpoint.
I think we're both making contention where there doesn't need to be (mostly me, since here I am again), but if you don't at least look at it in the right way, you'll never be able to refute them properly.
Once again, bats can see just fine. There is no evidence of any bat species with poor vision. There are two species of diurnal owl, which I'm sure some evolutionist has explained, but once again, I am a Christian and don't actually agree with evolution. But you need to familiarize yourself with scientific views in order to debunk them and be taken seriously.
And yet the same lifespan is estimated in early hunter-gatherers. They had shorter work days than the industrial worker in the 1800s, traveled enough to eliminate fecal waste, etc., as a factor of disease propagation, and had a balanced diet. It is true that they didn't have soap or hygiene, but they still lived to be 30-40. The main trend in periods between whenever humanity started and the late 1800s was a lack of formalized medicinal research, in other words, pharmaceuticals. I disagree with some things pharmaceuticals do, such as using lab-made chemicals rather than natural herbs, etc., but they aren't actively trying to poison us. They are trying to keep humans alive.
The only connection is that the Greeks influenced the Romans who influenced Europe. And a word can have multiple meanings. It is quite obvious that pharmaceutical derives from the first meaning you provided, "the use or the administering of drugs." In case you didn't notice, the average lifespan has increased dramatically since the introduction of pharmaceutical drugs, like penicillin.
The difference is that the fish live in complete darkness. No moon, no stars, no day.
Owls merely evolved to hunt at night as to avoid competition with other predators.
Bats, despite popular belief, can see just fine. However, they evolved echolocation instead.
I AM a Christian, but it's important that you see things from a slightly less biased view.
"the world health association symbol is a snake on a stick"
This refers to the Rod of Asclepius in Greek mythology. Asclepius was a god associated with healing and medicine.
Furthermore, medical developments in the 20th and 21st century have shown that antivenins can be produced from snake venoms, as well as anticoagulants and other drugs.
Their eyes got large to the point that they couldn't move, so they had to have greater neck flexibility? I'm not an expert, and I'm a Christian too. I'm just saying that evolution does make more sense than you seem to think.
My personal example for when evolution doesn't make sense is the acacia tree's defense system. If you're interested at all, I'll lay down the basics and give you a few links.
Same process. Owl-like birds with the most rods and largest eyes were able to find more prey, were less likely to die, and propagated their genes. Evolution is highly plausible.
You might be right. I haven't been to law school, so I don't know if there's an appreciable difference between what high schoolers learn and law school. Of course, there's still the question of it it SHOULD...
The way evolution explains it is that the bears with paler fur survived to have babies with each other, of which the palest of those survived to have babies, etc.
So, no, a polar bear "cannot just suddenly turn white just because it lives in the snow," but, yes, evolution does provide a plausible explanation.
Am I supposed to believe that there is absolutely no other conceivable way for the facts you listed to be true unless evolution is fact? Because I can think of five alternatives off the top of my head.
I would say that there is a difference between active disbelief after acquiring knowledge and a lack of beliefs due to a lack of knowledge.
So no, babies aren't atheists, any more than they are Republicans or Democrats.
I was under the impression that you were a reputable debater. Something about being #1 on the site. Don't ignore a debate, even if you're afraid to lose.
I think the taboo on women's breasts has to do with the sexual associations. Everyone is trained to think of female breasts sexually, and most people regard open sexuality as taboo. So there is a difference between males and females being topless. This view is incorrect, but the problem is either the sexuality taboo or the sexual association with women's breasts. That's where the problem lies, in my opinion.
The samurai's katana has a superior forging technique the quality of steel is such that it can stab through plate armor. The European broadsword required a duller edge. It was like a giant half of safety scissors. Moreover, samurai are trained in the bow.
Samurai would win.
"Trump has done nothing for [the common man], despite his claim he's for the forgotten American"
The common man and the "forgotten American" are different. That's why it's "forgotten." Too many Americans are entitled jerks, expecting government aid. Government aid, I have nothing against. However, there are those who just mooch off those tax dollars and don't get themselves back on their feet ON PURPOSE, because they're lazy and take everything for granted.
"Your way doesn't help humanity,"
I disagree. In case you haven't looked at humanitarian aid in the last few decades, there's a large portion of Christian funding.
" it's a bold gamble on a man-made game."
Is it as bold as risking eternal damnation? According to my view, that's what you're doing. My gamble pales in comparison to yours. I am, just like you, " I can do what matters for me."
"Humans create meaning"
So meaning is an abstract. Like in your other debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/657), merely "A tool we use to describe reality around us."
If meaning is just a mental construct, then it is no more real than you claim my conception of a God to be.
I find that babies, or at least newborns, don't have any social constructs, especially something like a complex anthropomorphized Supreme Power. If you are familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms, they haven't made any forms for them to judge reality by.
Are you considered an atheist at birth? Does a lack of any belief constitute a negative belief? If I was somehow raised without ever being introduced to the concept of (a) Supreme Being(s), would I be considered an atheist?
Just a warning now, your vote is probably going to be modded for not talking about sources. A sentence or two should suffice.
The universe is an ever-expanding (ergo, moving) object, according to science. Science also speculates that gravity will eventually result in the "Big Crunch," necessarily stopping and then reversing the force of the universe's expansion. Hardly unstoppable or immovable.
Many pharmaceuticals do have adverse side effects, but so does having a baby, or being stressed, and those aren't poisons.
Once again, they based it off of the other meaning, "the use or the administering of drugs."
See, side effects like that are why I don't support chemical drugs. But they do (generally speaking) help with the symptoms they're supposed to treat.
No chemical only does one thing, especially when it's ingested. It has to go through the entire bloodstream. Prozac isn't put in your brain directly, so it makes sense for it to have some effect elsewhere in the body.
"the effects of Prozac should only be in the head because that's were Prozac goes to treat depression"
Neither the drug nor your bloodstream can control where it goes. It just disseminates in the body. Prozac doesn't "go" anywhere specifically because your bloodstream is an unfiltered system.
You won't convince most atheists with scripture. Use science against them.
Yes.
I am not supporting evolution in the slightest. I'm just correcting misinformation and telling you the evolutionist standpoint.
I think we're both making contention where there doesn't need to be (mostly me, since here I am again), but if you don't at least look at it in the right way, you'll never be able to refute them properly.
Once again, bats can see just fine. There is no evidence of any bat species with poor vision. There are two species of diurnal owl, which I'm sure some evolutionist has explained, but once again, I am a Christian and don't actually agree with evolution. But you need to familiarize yourself with scientific views in order to debunk them and be taken seriously.
Let's give this a shot.
And yet the same lifespan is estimated in early hunter-gatherers. They had shorter work days than the industrial worker in the 1800s, traveled enough to eliminate fecal waste, etc., as a factor of disease propagation, and had a balanced diet. It is true that they didn't have soap or hygiene, but they still lived to be 30-40. The main trend in periods between whenever humanity started and the late 1800s was a lack of formalized medicinal research, in other words, pharmaceuticals. I disagree with some things pharmaceuticals do, such as using lab-made chemicals rather than natural herbs, etc., but they aren't actively trying to poison us. They are trying to keep humans alive.
The only connection is that the Greeks influenced the Romans who influenced Europe. And a word can have multiple meanings. It is quite obvious that pharmaceutical derives from the first meaning you provided, "the use or the administering of drugs." In case you didn't notice, the average lifespan has increased dramatically since the introduction of pharmaceutical drugs, like penicillin.
should be
I'm okay with that. But a curriculum be developed so that the schools have that option.
The difference is that the fish live in complete darkness. No moon, no stars, no day.
Owls merely evolved to hunt at night as to avoid competition with other predators.
Bats, despite popular belief, can see just fine. However, they evolved echolocation instead.
I AM a Christian, but it's important that you see things from a slightly less biased view.
"the world health association symbol is a snake on a stick"
This refers to the Rod of Asclepius in Greek mythology. Asclepius was a god associated with healing and medicine.
Furthermore, medical developments in the 20th and 21st century have shown that antivenins can be produced from snake venoms, as well as anticoagulants and other drugs.
Their eyes got large to the point that they couldn't move, so they had to have greater neck flexibility? I'm not an expert, and I'm a Christian too. I'm just saying that evolution does make more sense than you seem to think.
My personal example for when evolution doesn't make sense is the acacia tree's defense system. If you're interested at all, I'll lay down the basics and give you a few links.
Same process. Owl-like birds with the most rods and largest eyes were able to find more prey, were less likely to die, and propagated their genes. Evolution is highly plausible.
There's some stuff in the terms of legal research and language that high school doesn't cover.
"Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access"
Isn't that a given?
You might be right. I haven't been to law school, so I don't know if there's an appreciable difference between what high schoolers learn and law school. Of course, there's still the question of it it SHOULD...
I'm fifteen. I don't drink.
The way evolution explains it is that the bears with paler fur survived to have babies with each other, of which the palest of those survived to have babies, etc.
So, no, a polar bear "cannot just suddenly turn white just because it lives in the snow," but, yes, evolution does provide a plausible explanation.
Am I supposed to believe that there is absolutely no other conceivable way for the facts you listed to be true unless evolution is fact? Because I can think of five alternatives off the top of my head.
I would say that there is a difference between active disbelief after acquiring knowledge and a lack of beliefs due to a lack of knowledge.
So no, babies aren't atheists, any more than they are Republicans or Democrats.
ok then...
I'm familiar with Sun Tzu.
You have twelve hours before you forfeit.
I was under the impression that you were a reputable debater. Something about being #1 on the site. Don't ignore a debate, even if you're afraid to lose.
May the most right win.
Thanks.
I think the taboo on women's breasts has to do with the sexual associations. Everyone is trained to think of female breasts sexually, and most people regard open sexuality as taboo. So there is a difference between males and females being topless. This view is incorrect, but the problem is either the sexuality taboo or the sexual association with women's breasts. That's where the problem lies, in my opinion.
How do you do the quote-y things? My attempt failed.
True. But if I can't have one debate that's purely theoretical and fun, then I wouldn't enjoy debate.
Don't forget.
Don't forget.
Don't forget.
I think the white bars mean that your photo isn't square.
The samurai's katana has a superior forging technique the quality of steel is such that it can stab through plate armor. The European broadsword required a duller edge. It was like a giant half of safety scissors. Moreover, samurai are trained in the bow.
Samurai would win.
"I'm just an atheist to one more than you."
So a larger gamble then? Just as I said.
Don't get me wrong, I think you're both very skilled.
If your rap battles were actually debating anything, rather than just insulting each other, I might agree.
No less than 40% of the debates on the first page on DebateArt are Rap Battles. What id the point of debate again?
"Trump has done nothing for [the common man], despite his claim he's for the forgotten American"
The common man and the "forgotten American" are different. That's why it's "forgotten." Too many Americans are entitled jerks, expecting government aid. Government aid, I have nothing against. However, there are those who just mooch off those tax dollars and don't get themselves back on their feet ON PURPOSE, because they're lazy and take everything for granted.
"Your way doesn't help humanity,"
I disagree. In case you haven't looked at humanitarian aid in the last few decades, there's a large portion of Christian funding.
" it's a bold gamble on a man-made game."
Is it as bold as risking eternal damnation? According to my view, that's what you're doing. My gamble pales in comparison to yours. I am, just like you, " I can do what matters for me."
"Humans create meaning"
So meaning is an abstract. Like in your other debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/657), merely "A tool we use to describe reality around us."
If meaning is just a mental construct, then it is no more real than you claim my conception of a God to be.
I find that babies, or at least newborns, don't have any social constructs, especially something like a complex anthropomorphized Supreme Power. If you are familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms, they haven't made any forms for them to judge reality by.
Are you considered an atheist at birth? Does a lack of any belief constitute a negative belief? If I was somehow raised without ever being introduced to the concept of (a) Supreme Being(s), would I be considered an atheist?
Please clarify.
Was that supposed to make sense?
I find that too many become atheists based on a 15 minute Youtube video.
The light is bent but the spoon is not. Your perception of reality is distorted.