Total posts: 258
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Excuse me, but the sun, praise be unto hydrogen, is most certainly aware that it only appears to you in your daytime.
God's time is different from yours...
God's time is different from yours...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Well, I was joking, as I consider myself an atheist...any way I was calling out atheists because I was proving god's existence.
Aren't atheists wont to refute god's existence?
Aren't atheists wont to refute god's existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Because atheists are vile...and fun to debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
No we need stricter standards to be the regular, default option, and what you currently call regular should be the lax fake vote ones you're talking about, and there should be an option called "fake vote"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Yes, these types of standards should just be the regular vote standards and if you DON'T want a real vote, i.e. one that analyzes the argument they found most important and explains who is winning that argument and why, then there could be an option that you select, like "fake vote" or whatever you guys are calling barely adequate rfds these days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
"Wrong. I believe in the ONE GOD."
Oh, so you're not an atheist with respects to Allah?
Ok, Gruogre is a theist with respects to Allah.
Is he not one god?
Ok, Gruogre is a theist with respects to Allah.
Is he not one god?
"Just because I don't believe in false gods does not make me an atheist."
Yes it does.
With respects to those gods, you reject the claim of their existence, so you are an ATHEIST with respects to Allah.
"An atheists believes that there are NO GODS. try again, dipshitzky."
Not true.
I consider myself an atheist god claim by god claim.
I consider myself an atheist god claim by god claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Listen.
You are an atheist with respects to any god you don't believe in.
Therefore, your mere existence proves that atheists exist.
You are an atheist with respects to any god you don't believe in.
Therefore, your mere existence proves that atheists exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
At no point in your rambling was there anything remotely resembling a cogent thought, a relevant question, or a reason to respond to anything you've posted thus far; we are now all dumber for having read that; I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul...of occupied space or whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
How does something come from nothing and life come from non life?
Something from nothing...
Well, you have to look at something and nothing as physical concepts, i.e. concepts of physics.
Something would consist of particles, radiation, forces, and spacetime.
Nothing would have no remaining particles, no remaining radiation, no remaining forces, and no remaining spacetime.
Nothing would have no remaining particles, no remaining radiation, no remaining forces, and no remaining spacetime.
Particle physics attempts to get to nothing by creating vacuums of empty space or the lowest energy state.
Think of placing a marble in a ceramic bowl.
You've got all that kinetic energy as the marble moves around the bowl.
But once it stops moving, i.e. has virtually zero kinetic energy, there's still the marble's and the bowl's potential energy just sitting there with gravity.
Well what about removing that potential energy too?
That's what particle physicists call creating a vacuum.
Once you've created the LOWEST POSSIBLE energy state, you've created a vacuum of empty space void of particles and radiation.
When particle physicists reach this point, getting to no moving marble, no marble, no bowl, no table, no floor, no walls, no house, no particles, no radiation, nothing, there's a fundamental fluctuating of sub nuclear particles, their antiparticle pairs, and the forces there within that result in nothing because it's an instant annihilation.
What's better is that these particles do not distort space, in fact, they are fundamental to empty space, which means that when there was no remaining and expanding spacetime (no universe yet) there were still fluctuating-yet-never-remaining sub nuclear particles, their antiparticles and the forces there within leaving only annihilation.
All is annihilated, nothing remains.
This is nothing.
No particles, no radiation, no forces, no spacetime, nothing remains.
What's nice is that this fluctuating is unstable, and thus guarantees a particle to eventually avoid annihilation and result in a remaining particle, that takes up remaining space, which creates such a high energy density of such a small bit of space that it expands rapidly, and from nothing (fluctuating sub nuclear particles WITHOUT SPACE) we got something (remaining particles, radiation, spacteime, forces).
What's nice is that this fluctuating is unstable, and thus guarantees a particle to eventually avoid annihilation and result in a remaining particle, that takes up remaining space, which creates such a high energy density of such a small bit of space that it expands rapidly, and from nothing (fluctuating sub nuclear particles WITHOUT SPACE) we got something (remaining particles, radiation, spacteime, forces).
As for life from non life.
Inorganic compounds can react and become organic compounds in the form of amino acids and these amino acids from polypeptides, or chains of amino acids, and these polypeptides eventually fold onto themselves and become biologically active structures that can in fact metabolize compounds and catalyze reactions, so in this type of organic network, macromolecules that can replicate in a template directed manner would thrive, because they would be able to use the catalysis to further reactions that favor a greater emergence of more macromolecules and RNA is both auto catalytic and can replicate in a template directed manner, and because of available phosphorus in this prebiotic network, the amino acids and the RNA were able to be compartmentalized inside of a phosphorous encapsulation, and this would be the first living cell, because it would have replicated genetic polymers.
From inorganic-->organic-->cell
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
People like you often mock what they do not understand. Sucks to be you
Hey you typed more here than you did in our debate. Sucks to be you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
If I didn't become a biology teacher to confirm jellyfish penis on a debate site, then what good am I?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Oh yeah where like insects face spiders and centipedes fight...fucking amazing, I could watch that instead of MMA sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean for me it's going to be the first multi cellular animals or any of the metazoans because they were the first to use atmospheric oxygen to grow, which over time, required these soft-bodied animals to become more rigid and structured and this led to animals with basic skeletons. Once animals moved from soft bodied to hard bodied, that to me is why there was a huge cambrian explosion because now you have organisms that can catch more suspended food given that they are larger and more rigid than their soft bodied ancestors, and they are great at using atmospheric oxygen to grow, a crucial component of all cellular life.
Basically you can think of pre cambrian as the soft bodies and the cambrian as the hard bodies and this is what led to that explosion.
Basically you can think of pre cambrian as the soft bodies and the cambrian as the hard bodies and this is what led to that explosion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you get that I was also mocking his post verbatim?
Or was that lost in my condescension towards him?
Or was that lost in my condescension towards him?
Created:
Posted in:
Hey everyone, MagicAintReal here, I currently teach Biology in a thriving public school district in Maryland, USA (my district will remain nameless so as to keep my job).
I have 12 years of experience, and, as a result, have heard just about every comment/question about biology and science for that matter.
So, I figured I'd see if high school students match the members of DebateArt with their inquiry.
Alright, I'll shut up.
Ask Me Anything about science...if it bleeds into another convo not too scientific, that's ok, but try to stay on task here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Here's the way I see it. Atheists don't want God to exist the same way criminals don't want cops to exist. They know that God exists, but they suppress the truth. It's because they also know that they are sinners and deserve death. They know that Jesus gave His life so we could avoid death. But these people love their sin more than their Creator. Also, the Bible tells us that many witnessed the miracles of Christ and still rejected Him. So, it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of obedience. There is no such thing as an atheist. Not my opinion. This is what Scripture tells us.
Here's the way I see it. Theists want god to exist the same way children want the tooth fairy to exist. They know that god doesn't exist, but they suppress the truth. It's because they also know that they are credulous and deserve to know what is real. They know that we cannot avoid death. But these people love their credulity more than their analytical brain. Also, the Bible tells us lies about reality yet they still accept it. So it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of critical thinking. There is such a thing as an atheist. In my opinion. This is what logic tells us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
It's a philosophical conundrum, if tell you to disobey me and you listen, then did you really disobey me or did you listen to me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Dude it may be deep see jizz.
Yes, I think that's definitely deep sea jizz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
If I told you to ignore everything I've said, everything I say, and everything I will say, and you do it, did you do what I told you to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Full forfeit easy vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Check your posts in your profile. I don't have the time or inclination to do it for you.
Ok, well i have no idea what you're talking about, and since you can't even seem to remember, it probably wasn't all that insulting, so maybe you're mistaking me for someone else, either way you flaked on our debate, yet you have no problems talking about abiogenesis here...why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Playing innocent? Not gonna work.
Look, if I insulted you, just tell me what it was, and we can hash it out.
Why are people so non confrontational on a debate site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
What you posted is nothing but theory. Actually, it's nothing but a hypothesis. There is no observable evidence to support it. It's pure fantasy.
So then why not point that out in the debate you openly accepted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Simple. It's because I don't like you.
Well, that brings up two questions.
1. Why take a debate from someone you don't like?
2. Care to elaborate on why you don't like me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
...testing and observation by experiments that produce repeatable results.
This was your charge, that abiogenesis cannot produce repeatable result, so I list 9 produced repeatable results, and you are calling me confused.
Hey did you ever get around to responding to:
1. If god can violate logic then does he have the power to infinitely remain logical?
2. If god cannot violate logic, is he able to do anything?
I wonder why not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Except the testable, repeatable results I provided you which you've ignored right.
Here they are again.
1. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, volcanic activity, and UV rays representative of a prebiotic (before life) earth, inorganic compounds naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.
2. Amino acids make up proteins, in chains called polypeptides, and the sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active.
3. Biologically active amino acid sequences in fact metabolize compounds.
4. Amino acids are catalysts, because they increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of catalyzing amino acids and catalyzing hydrothermal vents, RNA emerges due to its auto-catalytic property.
5. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this is able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network by replicating in a template-directed manner.
6. Available phosphorous in this network encapsulates and acts as a barrier for the biologically active, metabolic amino acid chains and auto-catalytic, self-replicating RNA, which, all components combined, is a collectively compartmentalized protocell.
7. These protocells can metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA, and this is the origin of genetic polymers.
8. A protocell with a phosphoric membrane and genetic polymers that can metabolize and self replicate is a full blown living cell, and these single cells are life; they're simple life, but they're life.
9. These simple life forms would need to eventually consume more, and the network of amino acids and other compounds in the region were in fact edible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Funny you're commenting on an abiogenesis forum, but in our debate of 4 rounds about abiogenesis, you couldn't even post one word...why not?
Created:
Posted in:
****The voter must base their decision on the content of the debate****
Is stuff made up by the voter "content of the debate?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Tejretics
This is about Raltar's vote on the debate:
*Here's the Problem*
Pro's sources "not supporting his arguments" according to voter:
1. The sun actually rises in the west (Los Angeles, USA).
2. The sun actually sets in the east (Tokyo, Japan).
3. I will also supply their global coordinates.
---
Con's source winning him points according to voter:
1. Observe the following video in the following link...you will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct.
---
Voter's RFD:
"Sources: Con. This is the only category where points to one side are clearly warranted."
"Pro both began and ended his argument with sources. However, it was never clear what those sources were meant to accomplish. Pro linked to a Google page showing the time of sunrise and sunset in those locations."
--See Pro's Sources #1 which are not overtly unclear--
"The Google page Pro linked to says nothing about direction and thus fails to support his argument."
--See Pro's Sources #1 with "his argument" written directly above it which is not the time, but the proof that the vent occurred--
"Conversely, when Con made any argument, he would provide a source (and often quote from that source) which explicitly said the same thing as the argument he was making. For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says exactly that. As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
---
Moderators, I beg you to take a thorough look at what this voter is doing.
The source points that the voter claims shows "that the western and eastern hemisphere are social constructs" exactly as the debater puts it, shows a video of a huge crater discovered under greenland ice.
Look the voter is claiming source points for a source that DOES NOT show what the debater was arguing.
Please actually think about what's happening here.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, fine, I'll admit to you being the best debater I've ever faced, now I would like you to honestly assess whether ignoring my coordinate sources and voting you points for sources that actually do not state what you state AT ALL is honest
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Look, I just want everyone to stop pretending it was somehow an ok vote, when we all know the voter lied and then ignored my sources.
Just fucking admit it....it's not going to change the vote, but just admit it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
yes this voter was voting you in with lies because he didn't read your sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Membership on my side is not transactional or negotiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Well, obviously not as Raltar still can vote.
You're gonna end up on the wrong side of this, and you know what he did was lying; it's just not right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Voters shouldn't lie, and you should be on my side on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
he's awarding the points based on how the socially constructed hemisphere was just soooo supported by your sources, but he clearly didn't even read your sources or he would have seen they were garbage, which you know they were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No.
He didn't talk about the coordinates and none of your sources mention a socially constructed hemisphere, none of them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I'm using this voter's rfd as a template to vote whomever however I want on source points regardless of debater performance, if you think that's over invested, you don't care about the voting on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"When I used the source he mentions, it immediately proves that the axis of Earth's imaginary rotation is in fact only along north-south and that west-east places on Earth have neither poles nor validity beyond social construct."
No no no, he said " which explicitly said the same thing as the argument he was making. "
Your source does not explicitly mention socially constructed hemispheres does it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"On all other sources my sources genuinely were saying what I was saying"
Hey which source did he give you points on?
That's right the socially constructed hemisphere, buit also he said when you made ANY ARGUMENT!!!
Dude, admit it.
Dude, admit it.
It's a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Did you see the absolutes in the voters vote?
When Con made ANY ARGUMENT he provided a source that EXPLICITLY STATED WHAT CON HAD SAID.
How is it that these types of absolutes can be used and they are not true.
It;s a fucking lie. How do you not see that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When you made ANY ARGUMENT your source said exactly what you said?
Is this real life?
Nothing said socially constructed hemisphere.
Created: