Prev: «   |   Next: »
  • Sid

    A well thought out list.

    I'm surprised you haven't got any raging arguments down here. Half of those are such hot topics they would spark a forest fire in the North Pole.

    Oh well. What came first, 'omg fake' or 'woohoo first'?

    • BigAl RadioPal

      I think "woohoo first" had to lead off … I mean you can't fake something that you had no idea existed 🙂 Okay my turn … Chicken or the egg?

      • just an idiot

        So, "omg fake" might have been first and then slowly evolved "woohoo first". Often we use technology to get what's beyond current human body design. another e.g. science fiction is based on what's out there, but its not what out there.

      • Generic-Name

        chicken because if a lizard laid an egg it would be a lizard's egg regardless of what hatched

        and the case of creation God wouldn't just drop an on earth to hatch he would make a whole chicken

        • 4realsies

          a chicken is still a dinosaur- google chicken with teeth, or even better yet, find that clip of a chicken killing a mouse, vicious!

          the first bananna was a well documented mutation, before then there were just plantains- red and green, barely edible things, but one day a guy just found this freakish yellow banana growing on a bush, it was delicious and everyone lived happily ever after.

          • Ziaheart

            What. Plantains are delicious. Bananas make me throw up. Literally. Not sure why. It's not as if I don't like bananas or anything.

        • Klanes

          but it is not specified as a chicken egg, so your argument is invalid

  • Jimbo

    Abortion is a good one. Good god, people will NEVER agree on abortion.

    • That1Guy

      ~Evolution vs Creationism:

      Evolution has some evidence (as sketchy as it may be) whereas there is absolutely no proof of God. Another thing would be the physical differences between a healthy organism compared to a retarded one. I guess God just didn't like that certain organism, right?

      ~Nature vs Nurture:

      Both play a large role in child's development.

      ~Gun Control:

      If we didn't have guns, those who obtain them illegally wouldn't have to worry about the person their robbing shooting them.

      ~Euthanasia:

      Some one with cancer and unmanageable pain is in a medically induce coma. Some one has to pay to keep them alive and in a coma to wait for a cure that'll never be made. I say kill them. End their suffering.

      ~Death Penalty:

      You pay to keep a child molesting murderer in jail. I'd rather personally pay for the bullets in a firing squad. Screw the chair or lethal injection. Too much energy wasted on a waste of life.

      ~Abortion:

      A father rapes his 13 year old daughter and gets her pregnant. Keep the incest child who will most likely have mental/physical problems, put it up for adoption and utimately have somebody else take care of them, or abort it. I say abort. Why bring a child into a poor living condition? Especially if you're impoverished and the child would suffer.

      ~Free Will vs Destiny:

      Was it Jeff Dahmer's destiny to be gay, kill and eat people?? If so, God has a twisted sense of humor. Then nobody would be able to blamed for what they do since it was their "destiny" to do so. And I can blame God for making my destiny be the chafing I get from chronic masturbation :p

      ~Morality:

      Would you steal food for your family's survival? Now, would you steal food, even if you could afford it? If you answered yes, then no, you're morally correct (and a hypocrite!), but only do what any responsible person would. Congrats! If you answered no, then no, you're an upstanding citizen that doesn't care about his families welfare! If you answered yes at all for the last question, well, you're a thief.

      ~Chicken or the Egg

      The egg came first because its for breakfast! :p

      The real question is whether or not you believe in evolution.

      ~Does God exist?

      If there is a God, he isn't any of the versions we've come up with. Since most religions came about before mainstream science, you could say God did anything and you couldn't disprove it. Now, for instance we know (at least I do, with common sense and all) that every animal paired up and went to Noah's Arc. Since this took place across the ocean from America, how did the animals get there? Did the whales give them a lift? Or did they swim?

      Buddha sat under a tree how long? And yet he survived and was still fat afterwards?

      Moses talked to a burning bush? Sounds like dehydration hallucinations.

      Allah dictates women to hide their face, otherwise getting raped would be their fault. Riiiight…

      Why don't we all just praise the sun god, Rah? Or Ares, the god of war? Hell, even Thor. Or the spirits and energy in the environment?

      I'll keep smoking my pot and claiming its part of my religion with my fake, but convincing, Jamaican accent.

      Now argue and never come to a conclusion! ARGUUUEEEE!!!!

      Feel free to call me what you will, as I doubt I'll come back to this page, despite the possibility of a fun and healthy debate. Unless, of course, somebody says something that isn't based on the writings of a centuries old fairy tale book, i.e. Bible, Quran, etc. Don't get me wrong, its the moral of the story that really matters to me.

      • 4realsies

        actually, theres a pretty ho-hum explanation for the burning "bush", in some places natural gas leaks to the surface, in some places there will be a consistent trickle of it for a prolonged period of time, even hundreds of years. Someone gets high on the fumes and halucinates, tells all his friends about it, they go camp out, camp fire- vein is lit and stays lit, seems magical enough so they call it god, maybe even build a temple around it.

      • donzaloog

        You are the embodiment of everything I stand for. I couldn't have written it better myself. I agree 100% on everything you said there, so do most people, but there afraid to admit it because they're afraid of alienating their friends, family and community.

        Bunch of mindless sheep, going with the soft and easy solutions, instead of thinking for themselves.

        • race car girl

          ‘most people’ do agree with what was said here – but I do not consider us afraid or mindless. I consider us strong willed and thoughtful, but we’re not allowed to say anything publicly. It’s not correct to have an opinion anymore – and while we spend ‘hours having the debates that we cant win , as listed above, I just wish we could spend same time talking sense and solution.

          Why do minorities have so much power – and are yet still considered a minority?
          Why do immigrants get so much leverage over citizens?
          Why is my culture changing so much to suit new attitudes – when old attitudes are still causing wars?

          I know all this sounds doom & gloom – but are these also questions / debates one can argue and never win? Are they not more relevant in today’s society then a friggin’ egg or chook. Seriously who cares – both taste great and I’m glad they’re both here !!!!!!

          • D Right One

            Funny, as a minority, I don’t feel especially powerful. I wonder what you’re talking about. Maybe, the fact that we can at least vote, go to the same bathroom, or maybe go to any school that we qualify for is what you mean.

            I don’t really agree with the doom and gloom. You’re alive and hopefully you have your good health.

            God did create the universe and everything in it. Science will prove that at some point. Just like they strive to prove everything else.

          • LariLee

            race car girl asked: “Why do minorities have so much power – and are yet still considered a minority? Why do immigrants get so much leverage over citizens?
            Why is my culture changing so much to suit new attitudes – when old attitudes are still causing wars?”

            The last question is the easiest. If the old attitudes are causing wars (still) then culture will change. I’m sure you meant a different question, yet that was what you asked. Unless you are looking to create wars, society changes.

            Minorities are not all that powerful. However, they are more apt to support a cause and mobilize than the complacent majority. Such a voting block can change elections. And if two minorities overlap on an issue, then real power can be tapped. Not to mention, there really isn’t a majority any more. Everyone can be placed into a box marked minority.

            Legal immigrants have the same rights and status as born-Americans. I see no leverage… and illegal immigrants have no leverage at all, really. Most of them are used in the most menial of labor, held hostage to their employers, yet they put up with it for a chance at a better life. We are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants after all.

          • Shogetsu

            I was about to cancel my subscription to this pointless thread full of ignorance till I read D Right One, race car girl and LariLee’s posts, only smart ones in this wall, sorry if this offends anyone else.

      • nick

        ~Evolution vs Creationism:
        i agree but there is alot of evidence supporting other theories that has been supressed to make the current 1 more valid, its a shame
        ~Nature vs Nurture:
        totally agree
        ~Gun Control:
        guns were mainly created for wars.. killing humans.. why the public has a right to bear arms is beyond me, but a killer is a killer, wether its a gun or knife makes little difference
        ~Euthanasia:
        if someone wants to die, thats there choice to make, not another human beings choice, if they hav family that cares about them, im sure thats something theyv considered, including there current medical status
        ~Death Penalty:
        in a society were murder is punnished by getting another human to murder them.. this dosent seem just at all 2 me
        ~Abortion:
        the mother of the child is the 1 who will be nurchuring the child for the next 18 years and may not be in a position to take care of a child.. id say she has a valid decision to be able to abort the pregnancy, yes iv had condoms rip, an im happy i dont have people i will never meet in my life telling my how my future has 2 be
        ~Free Will vs Destiny:
        destiny seems like a ridiculous concept to me and is probably a cowards way out of researching why things happen
        ~Morality:
        Would you steal food for your family’s survival? Now, would you steal food, even if you could afford it? If you answered yes, then no, you’re morally correct (and a hypocrite!), but only do what any responsible person would. Congrats! If you answered no, then no, you’re an upstanding citizen that doesn’t care about his families welfare! If you answered yes at all for the last question, well, you’re a thief.
        this is a very grey area for me, the main reason is our society is soo extremely currupt and full of greed that if you were morally just you would probably live an extremely hard life, otherwise in an ideal society stealing to feed your starving family would never be needed for 1 because sum1 woudl hav thout of how to feed evry1 with very little effort and money (this isnt profitable for investors), and also because the person you are steeling food from would give your starving family food because he would be morally correct
        ~Chicken or the Egg
        The real question is whether or not you believe in evolution.
        to answer that, no i dont.. i beleve we were genetically created, very hard concept to grasp , but if you actually know your history, this concept predates religion by thousands of years, and is well documented by some of the 1st civilizations, i so far havent seen any evidence that proves this theory to be a lie
        ~Does God exist?
        totally agree with your concept

        by god if you mean the creator, or creators of our species, i do beleve that, but could be wrong.
        if you mean god as someone who has mistacal powers and decides yur future and watches yu masturbate..
        i find that rather amusing, kindof like the story of santa clause.. there 1nce was a dude that went around and gave out presents to children.. now his legend is crudely misinterpreted as sum fat dude that flyes thru the sky with reindeer and enters buildings thru the fireplace

        • Why would God just create humans? I think it’s just a name for the first cause. Humans created lots of dog races through evolution, just like all of nature created everything there is. Some polar bears lost their pigment like Michael Jackson and thus were better fit for the snowy environment, out-breeding the normal bears in that area. That’s why the Catholic church banned condoms – they want more souls for power.

          A chicken egg was laid by a chicken or hatches one? Sentient gods made nature, or nature made sentient gods? Perfect at first, or did it take a while to invent the Internet? Trial and error is what drives evolution.

      • ed

        It is widly considered sientific fact that there was once literatly nothing (don’t think about it, ur head will EXPLODE), yet it is also considered sientific fact that a molacule cannot be created nor destroyed, so how did we get any thing? The big bang? If so, how did we get that gigantasourousrex star/planet/big ass thingy? NO other exclamation than God. However, this dose not mean there was no evelution.

        • 4realsies

          Ehhhhh, no, we don’t know what was before the big bang (it all popped into existence from nothing, from divine whim, from another dimension, that it had always bee there and there was a big bounce), all we know is everything used to be bunched up together and its been expanding ever since. What we know is that we don’t know: that doesn’t give every wackjob free reign to claim their imaginary friend did it.

          • LariLee

            “What we know is that we don’t know: that doesn’t give every wackjob free reign to claim their imaginary friend did it.”

            Devil’s advocate has to point out the equal is true… It doesn’t give every wackjob free reign to claim that someone’s imaginary friend didn’t do it. All the more reason that this is one argument that will never be won.

            I imagine that if the heavens opened and a Supreme Being/God/the Imaginary Friend appeared to everyone in the world at the same time and said: “I made it all” then there would be two people who’d yawn and say, “I think Spielberg could have done it better” and “Well, prove it.”

            I personally love the diversity in this world.

            ~Lari

          • So to believe in a higher power, God, makes me a wackjob? It seems there is a lack of tolerance from atheists as well. I will never understand why atheists are so against Christians. You don’t want to believe, then don’t, but don’t hate on those that do. Why all the anger? Really, why the anger?

          • 4realsies

            Anger? Hardly.

            But if you want me to get all riled up, I can google up some images of christians burning “witches” alive in africa- cause thats what the words in the book actually say to do.

          • LariLee

            4realsies, please tell me what book instructs people to burn witches. If this sounds like a trap, you’re probably right. 🙂 And even if a small percentage of people are using their personal belief system to persecute others, tarring everyone with the same brush is exceptionally small-minded and judgmental.

            If you don’t accept any part of the Bible, Torah or Koran as having any value, despite thousands of years of influence, please understand that a youtube video a few months old probably isn’t going to magically change the world into agreeing with your cookie-cutter beliefs on atheism.

          • 4realsies

            The youtube video didnt invent the concept of critical thinking, and people have been “not believing” long before the abrahamic faith started to ferment.

            Murder in the bible:
            http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

            ctrl f for witch, its near the top:
            You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

            Some trap?

            And Wakeup, thats like saying “despite being shown that Im wrong, the idea of *being right* means Im right, so therefore Im right” not very convincing.

          • Wakeup

            Wow atheists are still using that as an excuse to say the bible is evil without having ACTUALLY read it, taking quotes out of context appearing way off from the original story it tries to explain. You are SUPPOSED to find that outrageous, the bible is meant to make you think what is right by common sense, its quoting what some mad man spoke, NOT God, its telling you about what people did out of madness and desperation to get God’s approval, not what God told them to do. Notice how all of those quotes are contradiction to the 10 commandments. Wtf were you thinking even posting that link without knowing what you were talking about first? Not trying to change your beliefs or be mean to you but come on have a little common sense, these sites are always full of so much out of context ignorance and troll, check your links before posting them or people will think you are trolling.

          • 4realsies

            “thats not what it really means” doesn’t hold any water; if it was just written by some ‘mad man’ whys it still in the bible? theists send books to africa that instruct people to kill, then are surprised that africans kill people over it? pretty dumb to think its anything less than deliberate evil. How is this anything except an attempt to trick people into killing eachother?

            You really want to bring the ten commandments into this?

            Whats rule #1? Thou shalt have no other gods before me, right? And what did moses do when he came back down to find everyone worshiping some other god? killed them all. Thats not the moral foundation America is based on (the complete opposite of the freedom of religion).
            Maybe you want to actually read the bible, instead of power skimming it half asleep and filling in the blanks with your own imagination on the spot.

          • Wakeup

            Stop speed reading through posts and pay attention, Do I have to quote myself? Really? The story isn’t telling you to do those things, its telling you that at some point someone with a twisted way of thinking tried to justify that. Nowhere in the bible does it ever say you should do those things, simply its taken out of context and once again you have done the same thing, read my post again. And stop relying on other’s point of views and their “research”.

          • LariLee

            4realsies, that’s not instructing anyone to “burn” witches, now is it? 🙂 And no, your original quoting wasn’t the real trap. Anyone can Google, after all.

            I’ve been seriously ill, but I have a really long-winded post I’ll make in a couple of days, explaining the trap.

          • 4realsies

            tell it to the spanish inquisition, or the salem witch trials, or these guys

            Five people suspected of witchcraft burnt alive in Kenya
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dae_1236854361

          • Wakeup

            What did we just tell you? Do you have no more weapons to defend your logic with? How are you going to do profiling for all Christians comparing to these overzealous religious nuts and murderers? How are these people an example of Christianity?? When everything they do is against Christianity itself and infact the stories were added in the bible precisely because they dishonored God, nowhere in the bible says to kill the non believers, those are quotes from men, sick men as stated in the bible itself. Im afraid to know how long you have been posting here but last year I checked this very same subject and you were still defending your atheism with out of context information you google from biased sources, you have full right to have your own opinions, but wtf?

          • LariLee

            4realsies, I was going to write a long post explaining that the worshipers of Baal included priestesses (or sorceresses) who sacrificed children to their god. And show that all the laws given in Exodus and Leviticus are meant to keep the Children of Israel apart from their neighbors and to have babies, thus increasing their number before they got the poo poo kicked out of them by their idol worshiping neighbors.

            Then, it dawned on me that I don’t really have to explain how people have justified the ability to do many unchristian things by using the Bible.

            Until you apologize for the atheists who prey on Christians, Muslims and Jews, I’m not apologizing for some sect that calls themselves Christian.

        • Wakeup

          I find it funny how atheists use science in an attempt to disprove the existence of God, when the idea of a God itself means he also created science, Is that supposed to “open my eyes”? lmao

    • Jim

      to that1guy:

      was there supposed to be an argument somewhere in that rant?

      it is funny to see people still making a so called debate on these arguments that can NOT be one.

      You know that you will never convince anyone to agree with you so WTF?

      and on the internet of all things.

      popcorn and coke and watch the continuing debacle.

      I enjoy you making asses for yourselves and I suppose each and every one thinks they make sense to someone other than theirself:lol:

      • 4realsies

        "on the internet of all things."

        lol, dont you know, everyone who argues on the internet wins 😀

  • Rohan

    As for the chicken and egg, if you accept some degree of evolution then the egg came first. This owes to the fact that most genetic variation between generations occurs in the gamete (egg/sperm) stage. Therefore the egg hatched a chicken, but was not laid by a chicken….just something extremely like a chicken that probably still tasted good.

    • Ian

      Seriously, is everyone who ever asked this question and didn't know the answer a complete moron? Reptiles lay eggs and they were around millions of years before chickens or any kind of bird for that matter. Same with Sharks, or if you doubt that these species are older then chickens then what about dinosaurs, they layed eggs too.

      • ding

        what're u… friggin drunk?

        • Jer

          umm no I dont think Ian is drunk, I think you're a moron… he's got a valid point .. dont cut him down!

          • Dude

            It's the balut that came first. Just look it up. I'm tired of this old chicken-egg debate.

    • Balut

      I think they both go good on bread. Egg came first, chicken came when someone found it, named it, plucked it, killed it, ate it and saw the egg and waited long enough to do it all over again.

    • shippers

      i dont think it hatched a chicken but some mutant chicken/lizard offspring who had more and more chicken like offspring until it became the ckicken.

      just saying

  • Angel

    There are other arguments that are obviously not top 10 worthy, but they are still pretty controversial…

    Gay Marriage?

    YooHoo's or Chocolate milk?

    Snickers or Milky Way?

    Meat or Veggies?

    McDonald's or Burger King?

    …and the list goes on…

    • Steene

      Cloning ban's

      Robot regulations

      Missionary vs Doggy

      Does this make me look fat vs are you lying to me?

      • LariLee

        New Coke vs Classic Coke

        Freedom/Liberty vs Safety

        Who's hotter — Ginger or Mary Ann

        It's the thought that counts vs big pre$ent$

        Size matters vs Knowing How to Use It

        There's just so many to choose from!

        • moonrunner22000

          OK, JUST MY OPINION (I always say that to keep from starting a war.) Mary Ann was WAY hotter than Ginger. In fact she was my very first..um…fantasy interest. Ginger always looked like a female impersonater to me.

          • se7en

            ARE YOU AN IDIOT!?! U THINK MARY ANN IS HOTTER?!? !@?!*

            (see, saying "just my opinion" wont stop a war lol)

            now for my real comment

            i dont really believe many of these arguments have a valid answer or an answer that can be found out so its pointless to argue. and most ppl dont realize this to stop. But of course some ppl just like to argue 😀

            likewise both mary ann and ginger are hot. end of story

        • moonrunner22000

          Here's one for ya. Samantha or Jeannie?

          • Victor

            Jeannie, hands down…

          • LurkerJoe

            I think I speak for mandom when I sat that I’d &$%# both of them, but I’d propose to Samantha. After like 5 seconds. Much like Darren did in the pilot.

            (And while we’re on the subject, Mary Ann by a landslide)

    • Dead professer

      Milky way

    • Osiris

      YooHoo’s or Chocolate milk?……….are you mad!!!!!!! its Chocolate milk all the way!!!!!!!!!!

  • Chenjeshu

    A timeless question that gets little attention today…

    Live ones life in duty to yourself or to a higher cause? A subject in service to the king, a soldier in service to the country, a matyr in service to the cause, a clergy in service to the gods. To them, the man in service to himself is a selfish and self-rationalising fool. To him, they are fools, duped into towing the line for another at their own expense.

  • Ukulelemike

    True, in this life none of these will be settled with complete agreement.

    The only place I would disagree with how you assess these, is the last-It haas been my experience, (as a pastor), that the longer a person goes in life without some kind of faith, the less likely they are to gain any in their "twilight years". Certainly they think of death more, but after a life of self-reliance, they extremely rarely turn to any faith during that time.

  • Tom S. Fox

    Evolution vs. Creation never was an issue.

    Evolution is a proven fact, period.

    Also, Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.

    • William B

      Microevolution is fact; macroevolutionism is religion masquerading as science.

      • John Alex

        no both have been proven the ignorant just choose to ignore the facts

      • John

        /facepalm.

        No, William, "macro" evolution is provable. It's been proven, and there is no doubt about it. Whether your proof is fossil record, or genetic make up, or evolutionary throw backs (for instance, whales have hind legs), or even witnessed evolution, it's all part and parcel of the same thing.

        Whils there is a macro and micro evolution, these are mostly grouping terms. Macro evolution, as you understand it, is identical to micro, just with added time. The behaviour of evolution deniers is somewhat similar to this. "1 and 2 are numbers, you can't show any intermediate steps between them". "What about 1.5?" "No, that's a specific number aswell. What came between 1 and 1.5?" "1.25?"… and so on.

        As for religion, evolution cannot be a religion, because it has proof and is objectively provable. That's why many theoligans, including the last 2 popes no less, accept evolution.

        Futhermore the debate is silly. Evolution says NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING about the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis, and that is NOT a fact or theory, but a hypothesis. (Look these terms up if you need to). Creation Vs Abiogenesis is a valid arguement and they are both, in essence, mutually exclusive.

        But evolution is a fact, infact it's more than a fact, it's a theory (a collection of facts pertaining to the same overall thought or process).

        • Peter

          I'd like to point out that, although I believe in evolution, it is a part of science and science is nothing more than a currently agreed upon set of theories (making it technically a religion), that are constantly being updated and changed. Evolution is the currently agreed upon method of scientific development. There are things that give cause to make us agree upon this, but that doesn't mean that it is fact.

          A fossil could, for example, be forcibly induced from a recently deceased creature. We are constantly discovering new creatures as well. What is to say that the fossils aren't of ancient animals, but of current ones that we have yet to see other signs of?

          Before you mention carbon dating and the like, these are based upon currently agreed upon theories as well. Thusly, whilst they work within these theories, the theories themselves could be incorrect, meaning that the age is not as we believe. As for geological age measurements, you have to consider that things can be pushed underground and often are.

          I am not stating that creationism is definitely correct, but you are ignoring all principles of science (I.E. We will agree upon this method, but accept that we may be wrong and await to be proven as such) by saying that evolutionis "FACT".

          Consider it from all directions before spouting untruths, whether intentionally or not.

          • 4realsies

            scientific theories are composed of facts, not opinions.

            theory of evolution: fact and theory
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

            Today it rained (here), we can all agree on that without calling it a religion 😉

            I would certainly hope society has the humility to accept when it is wrong about something and acknowledge the changes and revisions needed 🙂 since you were on a flat earth tangent in other posts, please enjoy this clip as well:

            the relativity of wrong

            /watch?v=hb7LPAbHenE&playnext_from=TL&videos=BtLMmjHL7B8

            and of course, the evolution itself:

            two minute proof of evolution

            /watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho

            Have you ever seen a dog turn into a cat? (Adorable!)

            /watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI&feature=channel

            Ken Miller on Human Evolution (dover trial; intelligent design)

            /watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=related

  • Tom S. Fox

    Also, god can't be proven because he probably doesn't exist.

    • Fox: you said the magic word! PROBABLY.

      and also, evolution is just a theory. that's why it's called the 'theory' of evolution.

      and by the way 'ojay' u are SO right! hahaha.

      • Big Bob

        "Just a theory"…Anyone that says that hasn't truly looked into the mountain of evidence. There used to be a theory called the "theory of gravity" too which many people at the time didn't accept. Hold a brick above your head and let go. As the blood runs down your face tell yourself it is "just a theory".

        • Argumentative Asexua

          Oh no, the 'it's JUST a theory', thing again.

          A THEORY IS A THEORY IS A THEORY. The THEORY of gravity. Get over it.

          A scientific 'theory' is not the same as a 'theory' in English class. People need to be educated about this.

          By the way, person above, you remind me of my Biology teacher. He is an awesome man. It is a compliment.

        • ZibbieYamala

          Well, I'll be one of the only people who's got some brains and NOT argue about an argument that can't be won. My goodness some of you are retarded.

          • 4realsies

            Ill say it without the magic word; there is no evidence for the invisible daddy in the sky, and certainly not for the claims people make about it. Tthe "I think it would be sweet if there was one" brand of faith aint good enough to cut it. Sure, i think it would be sweet if I could ride around on a jet pack equipt t-rex, but that aint gonna happen just for want of it.

          • moonrunner22000

            Frankly the only "proof" for the existence of a Supreme Being is the Bible. How do we know what the Bible says is true? The Bible said so. How do we know what the Bible said about its truthfulness is true? The Bible said so. How do we know the criterion for presenting facts in the Bible is true? The Bible said so,

            Using that logic I am the rightful king of the universe. How do we know that is true? I said so. How do we know my information gathering methods are true? I said so. What is the final proof that what I say is true? I said so.

            So therefore, all my loyal subjects in the universe meet me at the Denney's on route 123. The coronation is thursday.

          • shippers

            then your missing out on all the fun

            maching wits with someone until both of you come to some kind of agreement even if its just to say we cant and wont ever agree on this but i can see your point

            so to thee i say your an idiot for saying anyone else is retarded just because you dont see why people argue

        • AJK

          all of our sciences are in fact theories whether proven or not…. we think this is how Gravity works etc etc. of anything we have no solid Proof of anything that consolidates that we are 100% correct. 1 thing is based on another and that supports that theory and the cycle continues… Theory of evolution based on the theories of biology ect ect. Here comes another Agrument, whether Viruses are considered 'alive', and also whether we ourselves are 'real' while our personalities are considered in a scientific theory that we are just random chemical makeups and responses that make-up the so called Personality… think….

          • 4realsies

            alot of people seem to struggle differentiating between "scientific theory" and the slang use of "theory", Ive gone over it a few times in this thread, look around.

            In short, a theory isnt just a fact, it is alot of facts. things fall, thats a fact, the theory of gravity tries to explain all the different variables of things falling. things evolve, thats a fact, the theory of evolution tries to explain all the different variables of things evolving.

          • Indian chief

            If it’s “Just a theory” why is it being taught as fact in our schools?

    • Mushroom

      Actually, no, the Bible isn't proof of the existence of God, the fact that we exist is proof, may it be that we evolved from single cells or implanted on this earth by science we were all made by God in the begging, your scientific theories of evolutionism vs creationism are irrelevant, only a disagreement between both your religions (Science and Christianity), when you have children you will understand if you pay close attention to what just happened.

      • 4realsies

        What is this "beginning"? as far back as we can see (a moment after the big bang) everything has always existed.

        That we exist proof that we exist, not of invisible friends in the sky.

      • AJK

        why has no one said…. god is a fricken genius and is this super secret scientist that planned the world to be as it is so that both creation and evolution falls into place?

        • 4realsies

          sure, thats reasonable, depending on what you mean by creation- that your imaginary friend made everything and its how it is because he wanted it to be that way… as opposed to your imaginary friend made everything and diseases are causes by sin/demons, pray instead of seeing a doctor, its ok if you kill someone, cause theyre going to heaven anyway and your imaginary friend will forgive you, etc

          • LariLee

            Oh, a chance to play devil's advocate! I can so rarely pass these up.

            If I understand you correctly, it's silly to believe an intelligent force (aka "your imaginary friend") set the wheels in motion that created everything from nothing and it's so much more intelligent to believe a big bang created everything out of nothing and through billions of years of evolution and chance, man came into being.

            Do I have that right?

          • Mushroom

            @4realsies: Wow you would not last a second in a debate show, you are the kind of person that gets burnt easily. Not only do you show great disrespect with your trolls but your narrow-minded basement logic cant convince anyone. Honestly, you are still down there? Do you really have such an ignorant view on religion and science? What do you have to disprove the existence of God. evolution? Don’t make me laugh that only proves his existence more in the eyes of those who believe, so why don’t you just back off before you loose any more respect.

            Your whole group of arguments have been defending science, do you feel threatened that if God existed everything you know will come crashing down showing you how ignorant you are? Well don’t worry science is part of our nature as well, you are entitled to your opinion, but don’t come here trolling posting that God doesn’t exist as a fact because in the end you are simply another atheist.

          • Mushroom

            @LariLee, Basically what he is saying is that an explosion randomly build a perfectly balanced castle made out of cards after billions of years.

  • John

    Evolution is not a proven fact. It is just a theory still. There has not been any research or experiments to prove or disprove Evolution or Creationism. This is mostly because of the immense amount of time, money, and rescources it would take. But I do agree that the 2 theories are not mutually exclusive, although most creationists believe they are. God cannot be proven until atleast the rapture, if/when that happens. Otherwise there is no way to prove God exists, and religious people will not just agree that God does not exist. Chicken or the Egg is strongly tied to beliefs. It is quite obvious that the egg came first, as it has been proven that dinosaurs lived on the earth way before chickens, and it has also been proven that dinosaurs did lay eggs. Religious Zealots however, are more likely to believe the chicken came first as it is said in the Bible that God created all the animals, not their eggs.

  • "It is just a theory still."

    this word, "theory", it does not mean what you think it means.

  • 8rustystaples

    Evolution is a fact. It has been proven with experimental data and objective verifiable observations. To explain why it's called the "Theory of Evolution," please realize that scientific theory is entirely different than the layman's definition. Towit, scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.

    There have been many, many experiments proving evolution. You can start with Gregor Mendel's study of inheritance of traits and move forward through Morgan's study of fruit fly mutations to today's work with DNA and individual genes.

    The chicken and egg debate is not subject to any belief system. Eggs came first, in the sense that egg-laying animals existed before chickens and in the sense that genetic variation occurs during development. I think even a hardcore creationist can agree to that. Genetic mutations don't occur during adulthood. A 30-year-old man doesn't just wake up an albino.

    However, I agree that creationism and evolutionism aren't mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to have open minds and discourse regarding some topics.

  • Onions

    Yeah, it's just a theory.

    Just like gravity.

  • Douglas

    Windows / Mac / Linux

  • Biologist

    Evolution HAS NOT been proven and never will be. Evolution is a theory just as creation is a theory (Christians back off, I believe in intelligent design). There is no physical way to prove evolution right now. In thousands of years when the human race and other species have possibly evolved into something else, then evolution might be proven. Until then, don't get your panties in bunches…

    Enjoy!

    • Steve Litherland

      God has been less proven then evolution.

      • Dead professer

        Please dont take my comment to offence anyone but, How can there be a man in a place no one can see and control everything we do and yet still leave us to destroy what he gave us? He was written about in a book and thats what he is a story book hero. What if 2 thousand years from now someone finds harry potter and all of a sudden he turns into god??

        • Dead professer, please do not be offended by this answer, but God is not comprehended by human intellect.

          For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

          "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,

          AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

          – 1 Corinthians 1:18-24

          God is pursued or sought after by faith.

          Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

          By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

          And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. – Hebrews 11:1,3,6

          Saving faith takes the form of believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is, hearing the good news that Jesus Christ, the eternal God the Son in human flesh, suffered and died on the cross as the atonement or payment for our sins. Yet, being God, the grave could not hold Him, and after three days and three nights, He was raised from the dead by the glory of God the Father and the power of God the Holy Spirit.

          By itself, believing the gospel saves the believer from sin and condemnation. But God doesn't just "leave us to destroy what He gave us." God commands all men everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to Him. Jesus, Who is Himself the Gift of salvation, calls us to receive Him through the Spirit living in our hearts and lives, and to follow Him as Lord, obeying Him as He speaks to us through His word, the Bible. God the Holy Spirit empowers us to share Jesus Christ with others through our first-hand testimony about Him and His work in our lives. Reading the Bible, praying to God in church and in secret, trusting the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and obeying Him as He leads you… these are central to our faith in God.

          Believing God does lead to greater understanding, wisdom, and knowledge… but knowledge may not be all that important to you when you know Him.

          • believer

            AMENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

        • LariLee

          Dead professer, you show a scant knowledge of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) were never written as fiction as the Harry Potter series was. G-d, in any religion, is not an “invisible man” who controls “everything we do.” For one thing, G-d isn’t a man, G-d is a spirit, neither male nor female. Believers will tell you that Man was given freedom of choice. Our actions are controlled by ourselves only. Part of the freedom of choice is having to face the responsibilities and consequences of our actions.

          • Clint

            ..in otherwords you're saying, if someone picks up harry potter, decides to deny it's fiction, and makes a religion out of it, that it is just as valid as the bible. You just supported the opinion you tried to defeat.

            Here you are 2000 years later, believing that books written by a collection of people that you cannot interview yourself, were one hundred percent first hand account of how the world was created and how it works, and trying to argue that 2000 years from now someone else wont pick up a random book and assume the same thing.

            Can't you see the horrible gap in your logic? Your argument boils down to "I know for a fact that a book from long before anything resembling modern civilization existed knew ALL the answers and was gifted upon us by some malicious unseen figure ..and no one two thousand years from now will EVER make the assumption that a silly book of stories, parables and fables is actually some holy book gifted onto us by some unseen creator!"

            Meanwhile, within your own lifetime, Scientologists have picked up the novel of a science fiction author from not even half a century ago, and have indeed begun practicing it as a religion – the very same thing you seem to think can't happen. Tell us please, how that is any different than the first people who read through the bible and decided that this made more sense than what their current beliefs were?

  • 8rustystaples

    Examples of natural speciation (the formation of new species through evolutionary processes):

    Komodo Monitors

    Fiji Banded Iguanas

    Darwin's 13-14 species of Galapagos finches

    the Scarlet Robin and Pacific Robin of Australia

    The London Underground mosquito

    the melanistic Jaguar

    Newly evolved "super-worms" (National Geographic, Oct. 7, 2008)

    There is no knotted underwear here, but to say evolution is not proven is a completely false statement. All one needs is an open mind to the evidence.

    My mind is open to evidence of creationism/intelligent design. I'm just waiting for something that holds up to the scientific method.

  • Stephen

    Before an all out flamewar starts on Evolution vs. Creationism, we need to define what we mean by Evolution in this context. Evolution in the terms of stronger genes surviving over weaker genes and being passed on is one thing. The theory that we evolved from monkeys is another. I agree with the former but not the latter.

    Evolution vs. Creationism is the argument of the latter vs. intelligent design.

    • John Alex

      Evolution doesn't state that we evolved from monkeys. We evolved from the same thing that monkeys did yes but not from monkeys and we are much closer related to apes then monkeys by the way

    • 4realsies

      why is the monkey thing such a hang up?

      • John Alex

        because it is misinterpreted so often by creationist

      • LariLee

        Because it turns all those “monkey’s uncle” jokes into trite cliches. And some of them were funny, dammit!

      • Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
        Genesis 1:26-27

        Perhaps the monkey or ape thing is “such a hang up” because God told us He created us in His image, from clay, not from another species. I wouldn’t want to call Him Who is the Truth a liar, and can we agree that God is certainly not an ape or a monkey?!?!?!

        • Gibasnish

          When it says that God created mankind in his image they meant the soul, which is your entity.

        • 4realsies

          Did god say, or did man say god said?

          • As a Christ-follower I believe the Bible is the Word of God. He used man to write it, but ultimately the Bible is the way God intended. Our perceptions of what it says may differ because we are human, but if we follow Christ we must believe this is God’s Word. If you aren’t a Christian then you obviously don’t. What more is there to say?

        • Josean

          We are intelligent, have feelings and know the difference between right and wrong thats what make us like god, not our physical bodies. God in the beginning CREATED everything and then everything EVOLVED into what it is today. God planted the seed that grew into the universe. We as humans fit into the tree of life just like everything else, cause if we didnt, that would be proof God existed, God doesnt want to be found through proof but faith, thats why u cant see Him.

  • ojay

    HAHAHA!

    you've all come and visited a site about 10 arguments that cannot be won, yet you all bothering to argue about them anyway!

    silly silly people!

    oh but to the 'biologist' YES there is proof for evolution! what are you talking about?

    the theory was built on evidence. darwin devised the idea BECAUSE he found evidence. and of course there is proof made via plants. i cannot remember the guy who did it. was done AGES ago… he was a christian. well. a monk. and he proved evolution via hundreds of generations of plant growth.

    so there!

    😀 ok. so now i see why you all argued over these things too…

    • William B

      Mendel's hybridization experiments were a case of "guided evolution", sometimes known as "intelligent design".

    • John

      The problem is many of these arguements can be won, because many of them deal with things that have objective testing.

      For example, If I was to say "That car has 3 wheels" and you said "no, 4".. this is an arguement that can be won, because we can go and look.

      Of the arguements listed:

      Evolution Vs Creation:

      Evolution is a fact (infact, many facts). This is NOT the arguement. The arguement is abiogenesis vs creation. Arguin against evolution is just being ignorant. Go ask the pope.

      Nature Vs Nurture:

      It's both. Ask a psychologist, or indeed, anyone that can logically think.

      Gun Control:

      This one I'd admit is debatable. I have a subjective personal opinion that I feel stongly for, however that doesn't make it objectively true.

      Euthanasia:

      We euthanase animals that we think/reason are in severe pain and have no happiness in life because it would be cruel to keep them alives. Yet a person with reasoning that can tell you in their own words, and suddenly it's imorale? I believe eithanasia is objectively acceptable.

      Death Penalty:

      Mistakes happen in the legal system–> Innocent people are sometimes sent to prision —> Sometimes those innocent people are exhonerated —> Therefore, objectively, we cannot have a death penalty because you cannot 'undo' the punishment.

      Abortion or Pro-Life:

      2 words: Ectopic pregnancy.

      This to me is very much like the gun debate. I have strong subjective personal opinion, but it's not objective.

      Free Will or Destiny:

      AHA! A truely great arguement that cannot be won.

      Morals: Relative or Universal?

      Both. Whilst many morals are relative (such as, is it ok to steal? then you give context, medicine to save a life vs a sports car); there is now quite strong evidence about evolution of morals and some inherant morals within species. There's a few videos on youtube expressly about this and they're quite fascinating.

      Chicken or the Egg:

      Eggs. Der.

      Does God Exist:

      AHA! The second on the list that is (at least at the moment) undebatable and unprovable either way. You can have a strong inclination towards one side or the other, but no-one can say objectively "I KNOW GOD DOES/N'T EXIST".

      ======================

      So from the list:

      2 are definatly unwinable

      2 are most likely unwinable

      6 are not really open for debate, with some of those (like the chicken and the egg) being flat out stupid to call a 'debate'.

  • Alex

    Well I know the answer to one. Did the chicken or the egg come first? Well eggs have been around since dinosaurs, and chickens haven't 😀

  • Peter D

    Evolution,Nurture, gun controll,no uthinasia, no death penalty,obortion should be the mothers choice,free will,relitave morals,egg,god doesn't ezist grow up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • creationist870

      learn to spell its exist not ezist

    • Juan

      Evolution, [no good evidence], gun control, euthanasia, death penalty, abortion via mother's choice, free will, morals don't exist, egg, no god

      Just goes to show you will never get an agreement. How I wish I could…

  • jack beanstalk

    I like chicken nuggets.

    • Chitty

      You rule.

  • DennisB

    There are two answers to the chicken and the egg – a logical one and a wiseass one.

    Logical – The egg came first. There were dinosaur eggs long before there were chickens. No one said the egg in question had to be a chicken egg.

    Wiseass – The chicken came first. The chicken had to get laid before the egg could.

  • wow.

    Hahaha…

    How did the first plant support itself without a cell wall?

    It obviously didn't without a complex designer… Osmosis membrane would have let too much of a concentration of water molecules inside the cell. The cell would have burst.

    • creationist870

      i agree i like the way you think have you ever watched kent hovind he is the best debaiter ever

      • John

        The same kent hovind that was sent to jail for fraud?

        • Bennie Tucker

          Yup, he's brilliant at "debaiting" >.<

    • prof. bongkush

      well the 1st plant was green algae and didn't need a cell wall then with evolution came early plants which were small, unicellular or filamentous, composed mostly of soft body tissues, with simple branching. then later about 1.5 million years ago, vascular plants developed.

    • 4realsies

      Who says plants were the first life? or even was in what we would describe as a cell?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

  • verinon

    evidence for evolution: thousands of years of conclusive studies

    evidence of the existence of God (or Jesus): nowhere

    Argument solved!

  • Fuzzy Bunny

    I've noticed that this list seems to consist of items and descriptions that are focused towards a Christian American audience.

    Eg. Free Will or Destiny is not a debate about whether God has seen or decided the fate of man, but rather if existence and time have a set and predetermined path versus the capability of a sentient being in changing the course of existence in time with its decision through actions.

    I believe that the author could have come up with a less biased list. If we use the ideas from "Morals – Relative or Universal" we would understand that in some societies, these questions do not even come into question because the answers to them are straight forward, one sided, and undebateable. (I think that's how you spell it…)

    FB

    • ea

      On the issue morals – universal morals and relative morals -you may find the following, although from a philosopy of education of view, in whole or in part, rather informatively and thought provokinly interesting: http://www.orhanseyfiari.com/ariphilosophyeducati

    • Free Will and Predestination is SUPPOSED to be a humanly incomprehensible pairing, just as waves and particles are each both mass and energy, and vice versa. The Trinity of God Who is one Lord is SUPPOSED to be humanly incomprehensible. God preexisting for eternity past is SUPPOSED to be humanly incomprehensible. The love of God for lost sinners, that He should put to death HIS ONLY “born-of-God-and-incarnated-inside-a-woman” SON, HIS ONLY flesh-and-blood SON, for a race of creatures that were as far beneath Him as roaches and viruses are beneath you… that is humanly incomprehensible, and beyond even angels to understand.

      Knowing that God has perfect foreknowledge of all future choices and events makes Free Will and Predestination reconcilable and logically consistent for me, or enough so for my limited reasoning. Just as His glory fills the universe, He is simultaneously present at all times, present, past, and future. “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He transcends time and space, mass and energy, choice and destiny. He is so high above the parade of history that He can simultaneously view the beginning and the end of the parade. He surrounds any box of time and space we can imagine.

      Man has free will and can make almost any choice, except a few logical impossibilities such as choosing to never have existed, or choosing to have a different time and place of birth. But God is far more able to make choices than Man, and He can and does put rewards on the right path and closed doors on the wrong path.

      He knows from the beginning every step you will take and every decision you will make, and He is more than able both to turn your choices to His will and your good, and to know your final outcome before you were ever conceived in the womb. He knows how your free will and His providence and correction will shape your life, and He knows the sum of your earthly being.

      Even though you have free will to make decisions and chooses paths along the way to the finish line, the final outcome is His predestined plan for your life. It is unlikely to be the BEST plan He offered for your life or His PERFECT will for you. But He saw your choices and made course corrections for you on the way to His predetermined destiny for you: predestined from His viewpoint transcending time, but with total freedom at each instant for you, sealed in the amber of the span of your life.

      There is MUCH more to it, but that is enough understanding to satisfy me until that day.

      • 4realsies

        so god sacrificed himself to himself to appease a rule he made? or maybe the tall tale got so out of hand you have to cripple your thought process to play along, this is a big problem when people apply that crippled thought process to their lives. Faith is not a virtue. You will not be rewarded for gullibility. House prices do not go up, they rot away under your feet while inflation gives the illusion of increased value. WMD’s in Iraq are not a “slam dunk”. Giving big tax breaks to rich people does not cause it to trickle down. and so on.

  • The interesting thing here is not whether or not there is an answer to each of these questions, but whether or not the argument can be won. Discounting weird "the universe was created 5,000 years ago with all of the objective evidence of a 12 billion years old universe already in place" kinds of discussions, the evolution debate was over long ago. But that doesn't mean the argument is over, because the nay sayers have a vested interest in the outcome. The nature vs. nurture debate is decidable, but is really a false dichotomy, since the real answer is nature and nurture. Gun control also has an objective answer, but it is difficult to find, and again the proponents on both sides have a vested interest. The chicken or egg problem is a semantic argument only, and the rest have large subjective components that really preclude an objective answer.

  • Gwendolyn

    Evolution happened. Animal species have evolved over the centuries through adaptation and such.

    I think that life was put down here first by God or whatever you believe and then different things evolved into what they are today.

    Life had to evolve from other life. It can't just spontaneously generate. The very first life was put down here by someone or something. Humans definatly cannot have evolved from rocks or space.

  • wow.

    this might not get anywhere but really, email me if you want to know more or be saved or whatever.

    @Gwendolyn: Evolution and adaptation are different things. Evolution is the idea that beings change based on mutations. Evolution is supposed to make something more advanced right? No mutation in history has added genetic information, therefore we must be less advanced than bacteria.

    [email protected]: If you don't believe in spontaneous generation, how did the first "cells" appear on earth? No one has made a cell out of the conditions believed to have been billions of years ago. Some scientists have made amino acids, but that is not a cell. In addition, those are just assumed conditions, not facts. Also, God created the first beings with his almighty power. If He can do anything except sin, I am sure that He can create life. We didn't evolve from rocks or space.

    @verinon: We may not be able to "prove" to you that God is real so that you believe it, however we can definitely disprove evolution.

    @8rustystaples: Gregor Mendel proved that traits could be passed down through parents… This can prove adaptation, but not evolution. How could two parents create something totally different from what they had?

    [email protected]: The chicken and the egg debate is, in fact, related to beliefs. If you are an evolutionist, you would most likely believe that the egg came first. Most Christians belive the chicken came first. This is because God created the chicken, not the egg. All of the animals were already "hatched" so to speak.

    @Tom S Fox: What do you mean Christianity vs. evolution was never an issue…?

    [Question from me: Why are humans so overly dominant over the earth?] If you can give a logical answer please respond.

    @Fuzzy Bunny: Good try; undebatable. ;]

    • calbayogcity

      Humans have the ability to reason. No other species has that ability. This gives humans the RESPONSIBILITY to dominate all other species.

      We are failing in that responsibility: e.g. global warming, failure to ensure that all species have the opportunity to live in a non-polluted environment (the mosquito comes to mind) cloning.

      Feel free to add to the list.

  • Bill

    I have the answer to all of the above. Life is precious because we all die, and worth living because we do not know when. Period!

  • Joel

    All I am going to say is Y-5 cluster…….

  • Since my statement from last night, when i implemented that all of the above "persons" were "morons" has been removed, I find it nessecary to add a comment that is more constructive, and not anonymous.

    I do not mean that you are infact dumber or less capable of making judgements than me or any other person what so ever. But the fact that this top-ten list is about arguments that "we cannot win", it seems meaningless for anyone to start a discution on one of the subjects that the list obviusly states as "undebatable".

    And to all of you stating that "The theory of evolution" is scientificly proven, you are all very wrong. The fact that something is called a "theory" and not a "fact" should make all people with any sence of what either of these two terms mean, understand that it is not proven.

    The debate someone could start here is what Fuzzy Bunny breifly touched when adressing the arguments whether morals are relative or universal. What are your moral standards, and where do they come from? Why are your moral standards more "true" than those of someone from a different culture than your own?

  • chicken came first

    The chicken came first!! How else would the egg just magically take care of itself? Wherever the chicken came from…. it was first. An egg can't hatch itself, nor take care of itself once its hatched. Half these arguments ARE winnable for the record..

    • calbayogcity

      Your argument is invalid. Sea turtles deposit their eggs in a hole they dig in the sand on the beach, the female leaves , and the eggs hatch. The eggs and fledgling turtles are on their own from the time the adult turtle leaves

  • sjokojon

    To Wow`s question: Why are humans so overly dominant over the earth?

    Because we(homo sapiens) are the only thinking animal(as far as we know) with the ability to reason. We are allso the only animals on planet earth with self-awareness and ability to compare ourself against other animals.

    Our intelligence has allowed us to develop tools and weapons, which made us the "superior" race of animals on this planet.

    We also have the power of language, and therefor communication on higher level then any other living being on this planet.

    If i were to start writing about all that has happen in the last 150 years and throughout the industrial revolution, this post would never stop. But in any case, this "proves" that humans have a "grip" on this earth, like no other living creature we know of.

    This is a "logical" explanation, unless of course you are a religious fanatic.

    • John Alex

      Not true, we arent the only animal that can reason or the only one that uses tool. We are better at both then other animals.

      Otters use rocks to break hard shell prey which is tool use for example

      and multiple animals have been shown the reason out problems in experiments.

  • lbufal28

    This is really sorta funny, you all come to this page "Ten Arguments That Can't Be Won" and what do you all do start arguing about them. There is absolutely nothing that you can say that someone won't disagree with you on here. Everyone should save their own opinions and ask themselves why their so bull headed.

  • kidicusvadicagodic

    The egg came first, why? Because inside that egg is about 4.3 BILLION years of evolution to make that 1 cell organism surrounded by cytoplasm and a tough outer shell. Now how can something that makes a carbon copy of itself evolve? Different conditions, that's all. Considering all life we know of is carbon based and carbon has only 6 electrons, it will most likely chemically bond with something to create a new compound and under the right conditions, will change the attributes of a cell. Since there are more unicellular organisms than humans, we can assume that this phenomenon happens a lot. Since it happens a lot, we can also assume that the changes can can through the same method via the transitive property. This eventually leads to many variations of one's genes since they are made up of different compounds. This is what is known as a cascade effect. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let's move on as a species and advance further than we are now.

  • a MuSlIm BoY

    well, as a muslim. I believe that God (Allah) is exist and He created all things.if u want to know more, why don't u listen to a few lecture by dr zakir naik. so much proofs to be keep inside ur brain.

  • DR. Watson

    On the Galapagos island the strong turtles are eaten first (as they are the strongest to break out of their shells) and then the weak ones are the turtles that make it to the sea when the predators are full. In other words the weak survive the strong get eaton.

    In the amazon rain forest they have found insects and small rodents encased in amber that could be thousands + years old. Curiously the ecosystem was exactly the same as it is today without a single change or modification.

    I have a PH.D in Animal Science, believe me its a theory.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    No matter how many times it is told to lay (Christian) folk it never registers. The word 'theory' used in general conversation has a much different meaning than a scientific theory. Think hypothesis (science usage)= theory (general English Usage). Theory (science usage) roughly equals Fact (general English). Scientist deal in degrees of certainty based on experiment, investigation and observation. Intelligent Design is not a theory (Science usage) it is a hypothesis.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Evolution is a Scientific theory which means it has passed the test and scrutiny of scientific investigation. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, which means it has not passed the test of scientific scrutiny. It is not an alternative to Evolution as there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of the master designer!

    • creationist870

      evolution was proved wrong years ago it is just wrong with we evolved where did we come from and don't say the big bang where did it come from nowhere if you go back really far you have to find God

      • Big Bob

        If we can't somehow exist on our own, without a god's creation… then how did god come to be? Of course, you'll just say something like "well, he just IS and always will be".. basically taking the – I have no proof so this is my way out – approach.

        A story can't even go around an office without the facts being twisted and confused. So why do people believe something that was written thousands of years ago by people you never even knew? Seriously, if your own family members or best friend came to you and said an invisible man spoke to them, would you really believe them or would you think it's time for them to be put in a padded room?

  • Travis Russell

    Not Really correct

    A Theory means that for all the current technology the idea seems to be correct under the currect testable conditions or evidence at the time.

    A Hypothesis is an educated guess based on some past events or knowledge. Anything can be a hypothesis, it does not mean it is correct.

    A Theory really cannot be proven under the currect knowledge or technology. Einsteins theory of Relativity…we are pretty darn sure that it is correct, but it cannot be universally proven.

    A law is something that is universally proven, ie. the Law of Gravity, Newton's Laws, etc…

    Scientific Theory is about as good as it gets for any ideas that we have, we have tons of evidence that points us in that direction but a Law is really the only thing that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..

    • Peter

      You have stated precisely everything that I was trying to point out in my earlier reply (to a later post, lol).

      It is these conditions that prevent us defining evolution as fact, even though we're pretty sure that it's right.

      If I could, I would offer to shake your hand. Well done on the clarity and sense of your post.

  • Spinner

    What about the question – Does this make me look fat?

    • 2012 and a half

      No, that doesn’t make you look fat, your fat makes you look fat.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    You should read more carefully Travis. I said "Evolution is a Scientific theory which means it has passed the test and scrutiny of scientific investigation." and your reply was, " Not really."

    Further you state," A Theory means that for all the current technology the idea seems to be correct under the currect testable conditions or evidence at the time." And I said,"Scientist deal in degrees of certainty based on experiment, investigation and observation." I guess you didn't understand what 'a degree of certainty is.'

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Travis why did you bring up the definition of a law? Did I give a definition of a law in science? Let me reiterate and maybe you will read more carefully. Christian folks equate the definition of Scientific Theory with that of a Hypnosis (or confuse one for the other). Since my definition of Scientific Theory' wasn't incorrect, I have no idea why you state that I'm not quite correct. You are correct on expanding on my def. i.e. a theory is as good as it gets, but there are no points in which my def. contradicts yours.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Moreover there is no 'proof' or ABSOLUTE 'truth' in science. The closest we get are FACTS, which are indisputable observations from which laws are derived.However, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I don't believe that in science to prove something means it can never be wrong.My main point, which you state as being incorrect is that hypothesis and theory are different and should not be used interchangeably i.e. calling Intelligent Design a Theory when it is in fact a Hypothesis. Also keep in mind the definition of PROOF can vary SLIGHTLY depending on your field of science.

  • Olivia

    very well constructed list, that i agree on.

    but my issue is with gun control..

    if guns kill people, then pencils make people stupid and spons make people obese.

    • John

      Olivia, for what it's worth (and this is the an arguement I feel cannot be won pretty much).

      The difference between a gun and a spoon and a pencil is the need for a gun. I live in Australia, but have many American friends. Here in Australia we have very tight gun laws that are (very loosely)

      1: If you're a farmer, you can have a gun to shoot animals and pests.

      2: If you're a sporting shooter, you can have a gun (and are required to attend a gun club)

      3: If you're a collector you can have some collectable guns, often with disabled firing mechanisms.

      In Australia, we don't have a 'gun culture'. We don't consider it a right to have guns, and moreso, don't consider it a need. We also have limited gun crime (what we do is almost always intra gang related).

      ============

      The difference, which I've come to understand, is that in America there are so many guns and so many armed people that most peopl, even moderate to left wings, feel a 'right' and perhaps a 'need' to have a gun for safety.This has in turn lead to a 'gun culture' where it's pretty much thought "you can't take the guns away they are a part of me".

      Gun control works here because we ha/have so little guns in the first place. Gun control, I personally think, wouldn't work in America because there are already so many guns 'out there' in the public.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Quite astute Olivia. Your reasoning is impeccable. People kill people and to say otherwise leads to absurdity upon absurdity! I will now sue Mc Donalds for making me fat. LOL The next time I cut myself while shaving, I will sue the Gillette Corp. And if my condom leaks, I will sue Trojan for child support! I can go on for those that disagree with Olivia. Dear Olivia you are one of the few sane ones left in a country slowly going mad!

  • Megan

    ABORTIONS SHOULD BE BANNED IN EVERY COUNTRY and GOD does exist!

    • Big Bob

      Why should they be banned? Isn't everything already written in stone anyway? Won't those poor little babies all go to heaven? You, and every other believer, should be thrilled beyond belief! No pain or suffering for a lifetime for them, only eternity in heaven! They got a free pass! Don't worry about those women that choose abortion or the doctors that provide them. God will deal with them and sentence them to an eternity of fire and brimstone!

      See how it all works out? Now turn off your computer and pray for all those little babies…

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    This comment has been edited.

    Megan your powers of persuasion and reasoning acumen are truly the marvel of this blog. Further, God indeed exists, if only in your mind.

  • RequiredName

    My opinions

    Evolution – IMHO the other side of the debate is merely willful ignorance

    Both nature and nurture play a large role in child development

    For some security measures for allowing someone to buy a gun, but I'm against gun bans or any such things. People kill people. And extreme gun control will only keep law-abiding citizens unarmed

    I support the right to die

    Against the death penalty except in certain circumstances such as a criminal killing people from within the prison system

    Abortion – I don't like abortion but I'm leaning toward the pro-choice position

    Free will isn't so free but "fate" as in some metaphysical force is BS. Your will flows through and is thus guided and redirected that is the canal of genetics and personal experiences

    I think morality is subjective with objective qualities

    Egg came first

    From most to least likely; atheism – deism – theism (general) – polytheism – monotheism

  • LariLee

    No mention of the biggest argument that can never be won… "Ginger or Mary Ann?"

  • Davo

    Evolution vs Creation is obvious. Required name has it right. Only if you ignore logic, common sense and proven evidence does it then become a difficult argument.

    Nature and nurture is a bit of both. It depends on the person though.

    Gun Control is tough. it probably too late to strip guns from people in the US due to all the other people who own illegal guns. It's not as bad in Australia where we're not as gung ho.

    Euthanasia – You should have the right to die. again an obvious one.

    The death penalty – definitely. Mass murderers, rapist, child molesters etc. put a bullet in them so my taxes don't go to their 40+ years rotting in prison.

    Abortion. For it. For example, You would have to be a moron to allow a 13 year who has been raped to go trough with a pregnancy.

    Freewill. Destiny is told about in stories and doesn't exist.

    Morals. depends. certain things aren't right no matter what. ie child rape. Others are relative ie the multiple wives deal.

    chicken or the egg. No one knows. Not worth arguing about.

    Does god exist. If there is a god or god-like being in this universe it is nothing like any of them described in any religion on this planet. so for all intents and purposes, no. The idea of a God is simply stories created by ancient people to explain things, which has now evolved into the farce that it is today.

    • John

      Hey Davo I agree with most of what you said, but let me throw a few other ideas at you.

      Death penalty:

      My parents knew Linda Chamberlain (Dingo stole my baby). She was convicted of mudering her child and was sent to prison, only later to be exhonerated. Mistakes happen, and people have been exhonerated from death row. I agree with tougher laws, but I disagree with the death penalty because mistakes can happen.

      Child rapist:

      I work in a forensic psychiatry ward (that is, the criminally insane); amongst which are a few paedophiles. Whilst I can understand, and at times have similar feelings to yours (shoot them), it's often not as clear cut as you may think.

      For example, I'd say about 9 out of 10 paedophiles we see are abused themselves as children. Sometimes the abuse they carry out starts out when they are young, (that is, they're forced by their parent to carry out abuse on another). And (albeit rarer) the child victim is 'consensual'. For example a brother and sister might be abused by their father, and end up bonding (incestually). If there is an age difference between the two, it would be paedophillia.

      One think to keep in mind, when you see paedophiles reported in the media, they are not the only ones. Many are dealt with outside the media because the crimes are mostly incestuous, and so they want to protect the other family members.

      ==================

      Like I said at the start, I can understand the feelings for wanting to kill them. Heck I'm a 'trained professional' and I still have those feelings. But on a case by case basis there's often a lot of grey area that often goes unreported in the media.

  • avi

    egg came first. it's not chicken or the chicken egg.

  • Matt

    Here's one:

    Prove that anything outside of your own mind actually exists. It's impossible.

    Everything you perceive [see, hear, smell, taste, touch] is nothing until your mind processes it. How do you know for sure it's actually there then?

    You'll never lose this argument.

    Besides you don't have to listen to any other arguments, they're not real either!!!

    Hahahahaha!!

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Matt, the ancient Greeks were way ahead of you. You're only more than 2500 years late with your new (very old) philosophical discovery. It's called Solipsism and the ancient Greeks were well aware of it and several variations on it. The great Socrates, teacher of Plato also mentioned it occasionally, so it would be safe to say it predated Socrates. It, Solipsism, has been around for a long, long time.

  • Mike

    Wow I've never seen such a passionate response to a top ten list! The creation/evolution argument will never be won, but we're obviously giving it a red hot go! How about this: They're both right. We did evolve, but that's the way God created us? I don't think the Adam from dust and Eve from one his ribs story should be taken literally. God is obviously much more subtle than just clicking his fingers and making things happen.

  • glasgowjohn

    RE:the chicken and the egg surely the egg must come first in the evolution of the chickens ancestor for it to become the chicken

    such is the evolution of the species

    • salilmisra

      surely the egg came first as the law of the physics says that every group of molecule tries to get in to a shape which has the lowest surface tension, and the shape with the lowest surface tension is oval(That is why the shape of a drop of water is always oval)

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Here's the point Mike, there is a mountain of evidence supporting Evolution. There is an absence of credible, scientifically testable evidence to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. With that lacking, where is the evidence of a designer? Belief in God is an assertion of faith. Belief in Evolution is an assertion of scientific reasoning based on testable, quantifiable evidence not mythology, superstition and faith. Yes, this is precisely why this argument can never be won. One side draws its conclusions from logic, science and reason, the other from faith, superstition and ignorance. I will leave you with a quote by Martin Luther. (For you Christians that don't know who Martin Luther was–look to the meaning of the word "ignorance" to define your faith.)

    Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. —Martin Luther

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    This is the second time the admin has censured my reply. I'm sorry did my pithy response and quote of historical figures injure your religious sense of decency. The intellectually challenged governing this blog will no doubt find my comments unpalatable. The truth cuts like a knife. Why keep up the facade of a blog dedicated toward free expression. Please remove me from your blog membership else do the right thing and post my comments unedited, as I have in no way used inappropriate language. It is my views you find inappropriate and that is something you should not censure. Or perhaps you wish to join the ranks of your peers, Hitler, Stalin, Saloth Sar, just to name a few. Keep up the good work. I'm sure they would smile and approve of your earnestness if they were still around.

    • NotoriousBigBrain,

      We love pithy responses and I respect all opinions given on this site as long as they are given with respect. I am not intellectually challenged (although my Mom may disagree), but I do censure comments that are not written with respect to another commentor's beliefs.

      For example, I am a bit offended that you would compare me to Hitler, one of the most vile, evil people to ever live, yet I let your comment stand as is. If I edited it before I must have found it to be attacking another commentor. I stand behind my edits and hope you can appreciate my stance as the owner of the site.

      Maybe you are referring to the comment you made earlier today. That was flagged by the spam software for some reason. I check the spam filter at night. I saw you comment had been caught, but that was by the spam filter, not me.

      And finally, you prove my point. YOu can't help but take a dig at those of Christian faith, but I'll allow it because I'm assuming you are trying to be pithy. That is with a "th".

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    To the Admin of this site, please accept my apology. It is now quite evident I had come to the wrong conclusion concerning your apparent censure of one of my comments. However my comparison of you to Hitler was not meant to be viewed in terms of his overall evil exploits on humanity but only the fine subset of his brutal repression of free speech and public dissent towards his policies and views.

    Replying to the last paragraph of your declaration:"YOu [sic] can’t help but take a dig at those of Christian faith…" I respond, Christians tend to be an easier target on the Serengeti of the intellectual blogosphere. It is not that Muslims are generally better read and or educated than Christians (except perhaps in the comparative understanding of the Koran), they aren't. It's just that I don't have to worry about a Christian tracking me down and committing holy Jihad to fulfill one of the many Fatwahs of the Ayatollah Khomeini or some other irate Imam. But fair is fair. I will leave you with a quote from the Supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz.

    "The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."

    –Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz

    Muslim religious edict

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Top 10 Arguments That Can’t Be Won

    Which came first– A flat Muslim Earth or a flat Christian Earth?

    Muslims and Christians feel free to resort to violence if necessary to resolve this question. Either Allah or Jesus can prove which side is right.

    • Peter

      In England, it was never considered flat. It's an urban myth that has no understandable source.

      • LariLee

        I hate to disagree, especially since you're British and I'm not, but there was a great worry with the succession of monarchs that studies ran under one king/queen would be considered heretical under the next as the religion changed from Protestant to Catholic. Treatise on whether the world was round and not flat, on whether everything revolved around the earth or sun, on the value of autopsies… all could be exciting, valid studies under the Protestant rule, but an invitation to be burned at the stake when the Catholic monarchy was in power.

        Fascinating times, but deadly.

  • NotoriousBigBrain – It's all good. Keep commenting, you keep us Christians on our toes.

  • smartie

    God created the universe via big bang everything happened and was set into motion. When a suitable environment was created (earth) he made life via cells. cells evolutionized and made animals. Evolution has to exist or how would you describe adapting to your environment which IS a type of micro evolution! People did not come from monkeys but rather evolutionized with them we both had the same environment (Africa) that' s why we are so similar but then we mutated (by the way, that can be a good thing and it does happen to DNA,). There has to be other life somewhere (what makes you think we are God's only children?!)

  • Zander

    ok the egg came first, at breakfast, the chicken came second, at lunch

  • Zander

    now, the ultimate question for anyone who has seen eddie izzards act, CAKE OR DEATH?

  • ally

    Ummm if we evolved from monkeys how come monkeys r still around? Also, we clearly did not jump from the monkey in one leap, but the evidence for a half-monkey, half-human creature in the middle is still missing.

    The chance of a series of genetic mutation so rare to have the first cells of life eventually evolve into us are so improbable that the theory of evolution still remains, as always, a theory. If we reached this way slowly over a series of a billion years, again, where is the half-monkey half-human? WHERE is the half-dinosuar half-chicken. There are too many missing links.

    But it is also obvious that many species are very similar. However, that just suggests that they have one Creator who designed them in same but different ways- not, that they happened to mutate, or "evolve" into their forms.

  • Ashley

    I like this list 🙂 Evolution arguments are great.

    In any case, to ally, evolution doesn't mean that the "base species" so to speak becomes extinct. Extinction and evolution aren't the same. Monkeys exist the same way a wolf and a dog co-exist. It's called mutation of a gene/DNA, not extinction.

  • ally

    Ok, I get that, but I still don't quite beleive we evolved from monkeys.

    Although we share a LOT of the same DNA, there is still SO much different with our bodies and mind. It is very unlikely and extraordinary for us to evolve. We would have to have a series of mutations that would make them have less hair, different feet, legs, arms, hands, body shape, different eating habits, etc etc… there is soo much. To have ONE mutation is extraordinary. To have that mutation survive and result in more is next to impossible. Also, it's not like any of those mutations from monkey to human would help him survive, so natural selection is out of the question for our case. Can you imagine a family of monkeys with less hair being beneficial and surviving? And we know that they didnt, because we haven't found any fossils that show the "apeman". "Lucy," Neanderthals, etc were all early forms of human, not apemen. Scientists have proved that their mind, body, and early attempts of civilization make them human. Also, I haven't heard of a genetic mutation that makes your instantly smarter. That would be awesome though.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    "ally", are you for real? Why not spend some time in school doing some research before you start making comments like "It is very unlikely and extraordinary for us to evolve." I certainly hope you are a primary school student, then I can cut you some slack. But if you are an adult with internet access… You really need to learn to use a search engine and start learning about science. And just educate yourself in general. Go to the BBC and spend some time there. They have amassed a lot on evolution and Darwin. Subscribe to pod casts like The Naked Scientist. Read Science and Scientific American the magazines. Buy or download for free some of the hundred and thousands of Biology textbooks now available through Bit torrent sights like mininova. In this day and age there's really no excuse for your kind of ignorance. Like I said, if you are under 18, I'm sorry and I'll cut you some slack. But if you're an adult, go to school, or go back to school or go to the library and learn to use search engines like google, bing, dogpile etc. They are wonderful tools for finding info. I should know, I'm an info addict.

    • James

      godsaidmansaid.com

      • LariLee

        Please tell me it's a joke site. The article on breastfeeding and Satan's perversion of it, had me rolling.. There is so much to point and laugh at in just that one article.

        • Gibasnish

          I take it you didn’t even bother to read the full article then. Their not saying formula is evil nor the product of the devil, they are saying all is relative as a domino effect, which in fact is true. The devil is just a manifestation of evil and negativity, in my opinion if he exists hes just another scumbag of many. But notice how a simple slight change causes so many bad events to unfold, I can assure you the formula manufacturers were not intending for this to happen, but now that they know it doesn’t mean their gonna stop. Great site, bookmarked.

          • 4realsies

            just dont spend any money there, please

  • jarred

    here's one for you… english theory VS scientific hyothesis

  • LariLee

    I have to admit, arguing about evolution vs. the Genesis approach is rather silly. The creationists fail to realize that the Genesis account fits perfectly with evolution if you ignore the "days" it took God to create it. And what is a day to God? And the evolutionists fail to see that evolution fits perfectly with Genesis if you ignore the claim that God created it. And isn't it interested that the primitive people figured out the way things were created when they lacked so much scientific knowledge.

    Basically, the argument isn't so much evolution vs. creationism. It's Religion vs. Science and there's really room for both in this world.

  • me

    Okay, so this whole monkey thing with evolution. Humans did not evolve from present day monkeys. Facts show that humans and chimpanzees and maybe orangutans share a common ancestor. The only place you'll hear humans evolved from the monkeys we see today is in elementary school cause it's too hard to explain to someone that age.

  • Karl Sundman

    Chickens and eggs are two stages of the same animal,so which came first the caterpillar or the butterfly,the acorn or the tree,the baby or the adult.One cannot be without the other,therefore a redundant question.

  • smarty

    It means on the first chicken was it a chicken or egg when it was born.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Editors Note: Sorry BigBrain, but name calling is strictly forbidden. I have edited that from your comments. We must always be polite, yes?

    Karl Sundman you get the coveted (removed by editor) of the week award for lacking even the ability to understand the question. Oh I'm sorry that award has already been taken by "smarty" for his/her contribution,"It means on the first chicken was it a chicken or egg when it was born.[sic]" I guess you'll just have to settle for, "Clueless of the week".

    And to the Admin. Please read their posts before you decide to censure my post. You will see they indeed are quite deserving of such honors. LOL

  • smarty

    waht do you mean? i was explaining the question as simle as possable to him but a guess you are just to ignorent to understand my post. but i am cluless in a different sence, nobody ever has to give me clues before i figrue somthing out if that is whay you mean, btw brain size does not contibute to intelligence, so you just have a abnoraly large useless brain or a useless brain with a tumor, either way.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Smarty misspelling the word “ignorent” was a nice touch. If I am “ignorent” as you say and not ignorant, I believe I will find myself in good company. I certainly don’t know everything smarty, but sometimes I think I know far too much for my own good. As the saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss.”

    There are many things I could say about your posts “smarty”. Let’s start with the one that reads,”It means on the first chicken was it a chicken or egg when it was born.” These are your words in response to another star poster, Karl Sundman . For starters “smarty”, chickens lay eggs that are hatched and are not born. With the exception of the Duck-billed Platypus all mammals are born living. “…on the first chicken was it a chicken…” You have stated the premise as “…on the first chicken.. ” are you now redefining that premise? I am not a Zoologist “smarty” however I’ve sat more than a few Zoology exams, and I know of no recorded instance of a chicken being born, for that matter, I know of no eggs being born either. As far as I know, eggs are laid and then hatched. But please educate me “smarty”. I am, after all, the “ignorent” one. In response to you dribble about brain size I will be happy to enlighten you in my next post. However I have a class to teach. Time flies when your having fun!

  • smarty

    i know my spelling sucks! 😀 and by born i meant the spark of exsitince. we say “when the unverse was born…” or other things like that to try to make it more simple for children or karl sundam, anyway im sorry for that earler i was just a little flustered because i finaly met someone as smart or maby smarter than me, im not trieng to sound stuck up, but 99% of the world is made up of not too intelligent peaple, btw what do you teach? im trieng to get into biophysics engeneering so i was hoping you might help. i hope to learn from you, and im still wodering what you mean by big brain.

  • Lesley

    I really enjoy these types of arguments, usually, because the spark of interest that everyone finds in their own theories I find absolutely facinating, I myself have my own "theories" about the subjects although never assume that I am right , because none of them can ever be proven beyond any reasonable doubt (I guess that's why they're entitled arguments that will never be won). Everyone who wishes to comment I believe has a valid oppinion to the best of his/her knowledge and own beliefs in either the suggested evidence towards evolution or the suggested evidence towards creation. I don't however enjoy reading comments that turn into a battle of knowledge and theories, that ends up tearing other people down in the process (as I don't believe that 99% of the world is made up of "not too intelligent" people. If anyone had the correct answer for these then they wouldn't be unwinnable arguments. Everyone please remember that this is a way to take on board other people's perspectives and either take some points on board or not, no one needs to be ridiculed for their own theories, technically their just as valid as yours in an unwinnable argument 🙂

  • smarty

    Ok, think about it. 99% of people are not too intelligent at all. Sure everyone has thier own opinion, butmost of them dont think up thier own opion, they hear someone elses, and "Oh, thats sounds cool." They cant think up thier own, think up somthing to back it up, or really dont think too much at all. If your still in primary school, really observe next time you go. How do people react to new ideas. And if people have gunien ideas, they dont know how to back it up, or wont even show it. People are spoiled. A few people, that think thier smart, do somthing and eveyone thinks it helps. But it ends uo killing us. A real intelligent pearson would of tought it trough. And these people you usally only find on t.v. They says intellegnc is a mix of oraganization and problom solving skills, well niether one is really contributing tro bieng smart. Thinking, just thinking is really all it takes. And nobody thinks enough anymore.

  • Lesley

    I was never with the intention to put down anyone with my comment which is why I don't understand your "primary school" remark when clearly it is obvious that i am not in Primary School, so to even ask the question I assume was done out of spite. I still disagree with your statement: "Ok, think about it. 99% of people are not too intelligent at all". Clearly you are judging the many by the few in the majority of your statements / opinions (as I doubt you would have met everyone on the planet, to have come to this conclusion). However i agree intelligence is a combination of different attributes combined together to solve a problem, see reason etc. So in regards to the perception of intelligence please tell me which of the following is intelligent:

    a) A single 30 year old woman who dropped out of school in year 10, works three jobs, has 2 kids, yet manages to provide for her family and keep a roof over their head, with the occasional treat for herself and family or

    b) A 29 year old man who has a steady full time job a long term partner who can recite dates, times, facts, quotes on any subject pretty much given to him, yet he has his power shut off every other week because he can't pay his bills etc.

    I only use this example because it is one I encountered in my work place and the latter of the 2 is an egotistical pain who also waffles on to me about his intelligence and how he looks down on the world as being less than he is because they are not smart….etc ….etc. Now in just my opinion; using what you have to better your situation is far more intelligent than handing out criticism (as that's all he tends to do) to others. Knowledge is not intelligence and having intelligence and using it is 2 very different things.

  • MikeS10

    Someone mentioned that, regarding the evo/creation thingy, they are both right…. I'd like to proposition the fact that they are both wrong. I say this based on the fact that this argument has been going on too long and arguing is by far and wide not very productive.

    So…here is what i think, actually, the argument and the facts presented by these arguments are really our very social way of allowing ourselves to make our own decision about what is really real and really true, and discrediting both of these other views as 2 items that we should not cloud our mind/life with. In other words, these things aren't important.

    This holds true for all of these arguments listed. I think the young kids say it best when this type of stuff is brought up. "who cares" lets play.

    • creationist870

      you are wrong argueing is the way we come up with answers to are problems we fight entill we come up with a answer or get fedd up with argueing and go prove it

  • (:

    there is no such things as chickens so arguing on the basis of a creature that does not exist is..

    SILLY.

    Now go to bed.

  • =[Prime]=

    hi, i have solve all the top 10 argument with an absolute answer with my knowledge.

    I even manage to define what is intelligence and wisdom in their most elementary form and to categorized some of the aspect of it. the mapping of the realm of the knowledge is not complete but is on the way.

  • smarty

    okay, one, EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BENN PROVED WRONG, just clarfing that, they found things like, "what about this, somthing should be here if you say that!"…they just havnt found it, and 2, MY THEORY STILL STAND, i bilive in dieism, and nobody hads ever proved that wrong…wait im sorry i bilive in an independent version of dieism, but still, noone even tries to prove it wrong, why? because its wright, im still open for more theorys, but so far this one ive ran acrose is very conpelling, and stands up the best, so…so far i9ts the most acurate

  • Buzzcook

    I'd say several of those arguments have been won. It is just that a small minority refuses to accept their defeat.

    Your implication is similar to saying "Earth flat or round" is an winnable argument because there are still people that believe in a flat Earth. Just because some people disagree it doesn't mean that the argument hasn't been won.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Well stated "Buzzcook." I had decided not to waste anymore time posting to this site. The vast majority of people aren't interested in finding the truth on issues that are generally already answered by science. Regressing a step further, the majority (by the majority, I mean the American public in general, of other sets of population I can not speak definitively) are not interested in scientific knowledge and understanding. Among scientists and the science literati, evolution is not a debatable fact (some aspects of the mechanism of evolution are still not thoroughly understood. But that aside, evolution is a quantifiable fact supported by mountains of empirical evidence.

    For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,"The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution". Dawkins studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.

    In addition I would also recommend,"The Evidence for Evolution," by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.

    Buzzcook, in your statement, "I’d say several of those arguments have been won. It is just that a small minority refuses to accept their defeat." I agree with the spirit of this statement, but not the implied numbers. Fully 60% of the American population does not believe in evolution. They are not guided by Scientific American or their biology teacher or science teachers in general, rather they take their guidance from the their pastor, Sunday-school teachers and the bible.

    Therefore many of these so-called debatable topics can't be won not because they (the topics) are beyond the power of sane and rational analysis and deliberation. The problems lie with the examiner. Religion, superstition and pseudoscience have skewed the reasoning faculties of many, leaving them beyond the power of rational judgment, reason and intelligent inquiry.

    • NBB, So good to have you back. You need to spread yourself across this site and start commenting elsewhere. Here is a list that was written with you in mind.
      http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolut

      I would like to insert here that I am a follower of Christ (Christian) and every pastor I have had has believed in evolution and made sure they preached that Christianity and Science can live together and should. God wants us to ask questions and discover new things, otherwise why give us a brain and free will? It is man that seeks to hide the truth and keep ourselves blind. God is all about truth. I belive God created everything, so why wouldn't he make us able to adapt to a world that is always changing.

      • NotoriousBigBrain

        Hey, who is this "jeremy"? I like some of the things he's writing, but he seems just a tad too militant even for my tastes. I differ from the highly esteemed Richard Dawkins. I think crossing the line from Agnosticism to Atheism is one that should be made with great humility. I'd hate be on the wrong side if there ever turned out to be a god pulling the strings of this cosmic puppet show. Aghast—what a thought.

      • NotoriousBigBrain

        TopTenz Master, thank you for your kind words. I confess I am more than a bit surprised to read that you are both a Christian and one who accepts evolution as being the primary means by which humanity has arrived on this planet. Those professing the Christian faith or any other religious faith for that matter, see evolution overwhelmingly as a falsehood, heresy and an anathema fabricated by the science community with the purported goal of casting doubt on the existence of their beloved deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution makes no claim or disclaimer to the existence of deity(ies) in our known universe or multiverse as the case may be.

        As for your statement,”…Christianity and Science can live together and should.” While it is true that Science and Christianity have co-existed for the better part of two millennia. It is not true that they have done so peacefully.

        From the earliest burning of the Library of Alexandria (the greatest library of antiquity) by Christians, followed by the complete and successful razing of it and it’s sister library, the Temple of Serapis by the Muslim Caliph Omar in 640 CE (some historian believe by then however the Library at Serapis had already been razed and a church built in its place. Many attribute this to Theophilus a local church leader for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a church probably around 391 CE.) we can see religion”s enmity toward science.Even then we can see the values of Christianity. They could have chosen to build a church near the Library of Serapis, instead they chose to replace the library with a church. The future tyranny the Church would bring upon any scientist who would have the audacity to claim the earth was not flat or to claim, not by faith but observation, that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around well documented.

        An interesting side note, some Christian historians have suggested the Library of Alexandria was actually burnt down by Pagans. Interesting in that both the head librarian, Hypatia, a female philosopher said to be fluent in more than a dozen languages, and the government of the Ptolemies, who built the libraries, were Pagan. (I never met a librarian who wouldn’t jump at the chance, and weep tears of joy at the thought of burning down her own library.)

        Regarding your statement,”God wants us to ask questions and discover new things, otherwise why give us a brain and free will?” I can only view this as incredibly presumptuous. If there indeed is a god, and that’s a mighty big if, to presume to know it’s will is the height of folly and arrogance. If god or gods did exist, it’s, or their intelligence level would far exceed man’s by many orders, perhaps by an infinite number of orders that of our entire planet collectively. If there is a god and if still further, it is omniscient, that would seem preclude the idea of any kind of free will. Anyways, that’s a question for students of philosophy. I prefer to stick with observable, quantifiable facts. I’ll leave the rest for you religious folks.

        Can Science and Religion co-exist peacefully? Sagan, Dawkins, Hichens, and slew of other science intellectuals say,”NO!” Unfortunately, I’m inclined to agree with them. I fervently hope we are wrong.

        And FYI, based on what’s going on in Turkey and several other Muslim nations, I would say that currently Christianity ranks only no. 2 as greatest enemy to Science. The honor of no. 1 enemy of Science would have to go to Islam for the wonderful work they are doing in the public schools. Don’t fret though, give Christianity some time, I’m sure she’ll come up with something to trump Islam with, she always does. 😉

        • Just to clarify, I believe evolution is happening, how can you deny it, but I believe God (without the hyphen) is the creator of the universe and all things within.

  • A6M4

    To Tom S. Fox, the guy who made a comment that made him sound like an arrogant ass, if something cannot be proven to exist it can also not be proven to not exist. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence, not a proof of nonexistence. If you want to say you don't believe that there is a god, say that, don't make an ass of yourself for all the world to see

    Also to the other guy who says:

    "Yeah, it's just a theory.

    Just like gravity."

    Umm, gravity is not a theory…its more or less a force. You will also notice that, as stated in the article, there are several theories that try to explain the effects of gravity, Newtonian Theory, Einsteinian Theory, and Quantum Theory. You will also notice that these three theories only work in three separate areas of physics. You can't use Newtonian Physics to describe an Einsteinian phenomena.

    And I must say all of the flack given for misspelling…why, you obviously get the point that is trying to be made. I have always felt that jumping on people for spelling is a bit of an asinine point. Like taking notes in class, professor may say Huygens and you spell it Hoygins, you aren't wrong if you can say it aloud the right way. Phonetical spelling is just as good as correct spelling.

    Also, its fun to see all of the arguments that spring up in the comments of an article pointing out the futility of arguing (if that makes sense).

  • jeremy

    "Ok, I get that, but I still donâ??t quite believe we evolved from monkeys." – Ally.

    Is "believe" the term you're looking for? Are you sure you don't mean "like the idea"? A lot of the time with religious folk, they have much trouble telling the difference between "X is desirable" and "X is true". One of many incontestable points made by Richard Dawkins.

    At least, I guess, some of the God Squad on this page can reconcile abortions, evolution, gays and the big bang with their own belief in a god. I acknowledge those people with a nod. For those of you that can't, why does *your* god have to be such a gigantic jerk? (I'm looking at you, god of the old testament.)

  • jeremy

    "I belive God created everything, so why wouldn’t he make us able to adapt to a world that is always changing." – TopTenz Master.

    Can you not see the problem with this statement? It's a dead end; a complete miss. Just a blase, generalising off-the-cuff religious anthem expressed because you can't offer a genuine explanation – religion in a nutshell. Fortunately, there are people in the world who can offer proper explanations, and no, I don't mean me. In any case, I'm looking at my computer screen right now, and that wasn't made by god. It was made by a man. Don't quote-mine this, or twist it so that it appears I'm alluding to a "creator". I'm not. It's just showing the weakness in the appallingly common statement "God created everything". If your primary argument can be dispatched so easily, how strong really is your case?

    • Jeremy, we will never agree unless something happens in one of our lives (I hope that it is you) so I am not going to debate you as it would serve no purpose. But I think you missed the point of my post which was to build a bridge between the the two sides and show how both beliefs can be shared.

      I believe God created the universe, the world, in essence, everything. Man has the ability to create as well, but without God there is nothing. You can attack this statement but in the end it is a matter of faith for me, which I have and wouldn't want it any other way.

  • smarty

    srry to ruin buzz right now A6M4 but yes gravity technicly is just a theroy, and to the top tenz master, before i adress youfor the first time, i gotta say, i love your work, that bieng said, i may have different biliefs from you, but dont listen to them bashing creationism, untill someone comes out with some evidence, were all wrong. fpr all we know the uneverse can just be a atom in some alternite world, and an atom in our world is another universe. conpletly unlikely, but we have nop proof aganst it. but by all means, everyone keep arguing, i love kicking back and reading these everyday, pretty entertaining, and it sucks that NBB cant stay here, i really liked him, someone with sence for once

  • dan

    Before I start I would like to ask that anybody who responds to my comment please don't bash me. I just want to converse like a normal human being using sound logic. Let us start off by assuming that the Bible was written by humans and not by a divine origin. According to logic this would mean that Genesis is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. Using this logic we have just cut away the first book of the Five Books of Moses. So far so good. In the middle of the Book of Exodus, the Bible clearly states that after being released from the bondage of Egypt, the Jewish people were led to Mount Sinai where they witnessed G-d come down on the mountain and speak to them face to face. The Bible gives an account of the nation at the time. The Bible states that there were 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60. This does not include women, children, or people over the age of 60. Assuming that half these men were married with at least one child, we are now up to 1,000,000 people. For the sake of the argument of the other side I will lower this estimate to 800,000 people. This is the only account in human history to make a claim as grandiose as this. If the "author(s)" wanted to start a religion and have many followers, they would not use such a fantastically large number. We can see from religions such as Christianity and Islam that each of these religions was only started by individuals as are all other religions on the planet. Can someone please explain to me how the Bible, if written by man, can make such a claim and get away with it. Furthermore, assuming that the Bible was written by man, one of the commandments that was given to the Jews was that they should farm their fields normally for six years. However, on the seventh year all farm work should stop completely and not be picked up until the seventh year is over. The bible also states that the fields will grow of their own accord so that the people will not go starving for that year. To make the question stronger, the Bible states that the year after every seven cycles of seven years will be the Jubilee. The Bible states again that Jews may not plant their fields for the entire year and that the food would grow of its own accord. Note that the Jubilee year is right after a seventh year. This means that the Jewish people were not able to plant their fields for a full two years, and yet the Bible says that the people should trust in G-d and their fields will grow by themselves. How could a human author possibly make such a wild claim that is against all logic? Who in their right minds would believe these authors? Again, sound logic only. Thank you very much for respecting this.

  • LariLee

    dan, most agriculturalists would agree to rest a field every seven years. It helps replenishes the land. Levitican law has one purpose and one purpose only: to separate the Jews from all others. It had to do with obedience to G-d.

    There are two questions here. One, is there an omnipotent creator of the universe and two, is the Bible the true, unadulterated, to the letter word of that creator. The two are related, but different questions.

    • dan

      I agree that with you that most agriculturalists would agree to this, but when they say that they are usually talking to people who have more than one field. What has been established as a very common farming method is to use one field at a time and switch off every year so that the fields can replenish. However, the Bible says that ALL the fields in the land should be rested, not some. As I have stated before, there is no way for a human to write such a claim that the food will grow by itself. It just seems completely illogical for anybody who would want to start a religion to make such a claim. In response to your questions, I have put out the question of how human authors could get 950,000+ people to lie about their religious belief. In response to your second question, the version of the Bible that the Jews have until today is the pure unadulterated version that has been passed down from father to son since the revelation at Sinai. The widely popular King James Bible has many errors solely because so many things were lost in translation. You have to remember that the Bible was first translated into Latin, then into German I believe, as well as various other languages, and only then was it translated into English. Many verses are completely different than the original Hebrew in which the Jews received it. In fact, the Jews know exactly why this happened and what caused it. When the Bible was first translated into Latin, the Jews were under control of the Greeks. The Greek king Talmei ( I believe that is his name but I will check this up later to make sure) forced 72 of the greatest Biblical scholars of that generation to translate the Bible from Hebrew into Latin. He knew that if he kept them together then they would be able to consort and agree on how to translate it so that it would not offend the king. So he separated them and locked them in a small hut with food and water for about 40 days. When they were released the kings advisers reviewed the translations from the scholars and each one was EXACTLY the same, word for word. One thing they changed was that the word for one of the animals that is considered unkosher by the Bible happened to be the same word that was the name of the kings wife. Without being able to consort, each scholar changed this word to mean something else so as not to offend the king. I forgot all the details of the story but I will look this up later to remember it. Anyway, the point is that the Hebrew version is accurate until today, whereas the translated versions (which by the way are almost never translated from the original Hebrew) have many flaws because of this. I speak and read Hebrew fluently so I know exactly what the original Bible means. My previous comment was based on the original Hebrew version.

  • A6M4

    dan I can only assume your questions are proposed to be answered. I agree with LariLee about resting the field. It's really strange all of the laws the Jews had and how a good number of them actually turned out to be beneficial (circumcision is probably most notable here). But if we go with logic here, where is the logic in questioning a practice that obviously did not heed the Jews from keeping themselves around for thousands of years. And also, logically, this seventh year rest and the Jubilee are not like a failed crop or a minimal harvest, they are not sudden and unexpected. Logically, if you knew every seven years you would begin to store food that could keep for a while.

    Also to smarty, I am not questioning the theory of evolution, I was responding to a foolish response (Yeah evolutions just a theory, just like gravity) to a foolish statement (Evolution is just a theory). let me say it one more time. GRAVITY IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A FORCE. you have theories of gravity that try to explain it, and all of them fail at some level. If that doesn't affect you, I will say this to at least differentiate between evolution theory and gravitational theory: gravity can be quantified and observed second to second, evolution cannot.

    In reality, saying evolution is just a theory doesn't really change anything, as creationism is just as much a theory as evolution is. Neither one can be fully proved without doubt. Sure there have been many species who adapt quite noticeably, but since the theory has been proposed there hasn't been a recorded instance of a species becoming a new species (let me again say that I do not think this impossible, also if you know of one tell me, that would be pretty awesome to look into). There have been no witnesses to either of these theories in action. Not that that would really change anything, we all know eyewitness testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence, despite what the courts my tell you.

    • Dan

      Perhaps you are right. However, so far nobody has been able to challenge my first claim of the 950,000+ people at Mount Sinai. I would really appreciate an answer to this. Even further, these same 950,000+ people witnessed a sea split open to accept them while they walked through on dry land, all the while being surrounded by walls of water. When they got to the other side the sea fell back on the Egyptians, killing them all. Also, the Bible explicitly states that for 40 years the nation was led through the desert by a pillar of clouds by day and a pillar of fire at night. As well as that, the Bible explicitly describes the Manna that fell from heaven every day for 40 years. It also states that it fell in double portions for the Sabbath since the people were not allowed to go into the field. This happened for 40 years, every day, for every member of the nation, which we established was somewhere close to a million people, if not more. It defies logic to say that they were all hoodwinked, or that human authors of the Bible managed to fool a million people for 40 years. Even if you say that they did somehow manage to fool all these people, what was the purpose of it all? Usually when people want to start a cult they have personal motivations. Yet if humans wrote the Bible, they would have to stick to all of the incredibly intricate laws themselves as well. Even if they somehow managed to not keep the laws themselves, they were left leading a large nation through the wilderness for much of their lives. What could possibly have been the motivation to want to start a religion based on that? It just does not make sense that the Bible was written by humans.

    • NotoriousBigBrain

      A6M$, your statements here are complete and utter nonsense. Please first familiarize yourself with the word “Theory”. Because it seems quite obvious from your posted comments that what ever little education you have received in your life up to now, it has not included even the most rudimentary training in the understanding of science, its process and its function. There are two definitions to the word “Theory,”(actually there are more than two, but for our purpose we need only concern ourselves with these two.) .

      Theory

      Def. 1 : A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

      ******************************************************************************************************
      By this definition, evolution, or more precisely stated, “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation,” is indeed a scientific theory backed by hundreds of thousands of test results, experiments, and predictions substantiated by empirical evidence.

      In your statement, and I quote,”…saying evolution is just a theory doesn’t really change anything, as creationism is just as much a theory as evolution is. Neither one can be fully proved without doubt,” you show in great clarity your utter lack of understanding of the word, “Theory” as used by Science and scientists. Creationism, or the more currently used term,”Intelligent Design,” here after referred to as “ID” , is a hypothesis without any test parameter. It, ID, is not a theory as in the above given definition. In all likelihood it will always remain a hypothesis because there are not known ways ( which satisfy the criteria for science. You can get high on quaaludes, as many of you young people appear to be, and tell me you’ve spoken with god, but sorry that isn’t science.) to test for the existence of an intelligent designer. So no Virginia, there is no Santa Claus and Intelligent Design is not a (scientific) theory!

      *******************************************************************************************************
      And the definition you are only familiar with pumpkin…

      Theory

      Def. 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

      *******************************************************************************************************

      Indeed ID is a theory in the way you use the word, however it is not a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

      And without a testable parameter, a weak hypothesis at that !

      Please don’t confuse your lack of awareness of the immense amount of research being done on the mechanism of evolution worldwide in a wide range of diverse fields of science for a lack of evidence. I believe the correct definition for your current state or condition is,”Ignorant” and, “ill-informed”. Please familiarize yourself with these and the above stated definitions before attempting to continue passing yourself off as having a competent understanding of science, its process and its function. Moreover, from what I have read of your above posted comments it appears you are also deficient in a proper understanding of syntax and semantics.

      As my time is limited, I can only suggest that you spend more time in the library and take more science courses especially Physics and Biology. I suggest you search out all of my posted comments on this site. Unfortunately I have to deal with those ignorant and Ill-informed of science on a daily basis. However and just on occasion I will come across somebody who is well read and perhaps better informed than myself. On those rare occasions, I marvel in silence as like-minded individuals as yourself challenge them in their field or discipline of expertise with seemingly little or no competent working knowledge of the subject for which they speak.

      For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied Zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.

      In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.

    • Darren

      I was also reading on a subject about inter-species remains. There is no actual evidence of a fish turning into a frog or a mouse. or a dog into a mule etc. They tell us these things are true and most believe, without facts.

      Climate change governments under orders, publish this and people like lemmings just believe. But they dont believe the Word of G-d. If we affecting climate so much what are we doing to Mars because the polar caps are melting there to. Is this our fault to?

      What is more believable, Big Bang or Bible. Well put it like this space is so vast but in that vast empty space were two lumps of rock and in the vastness they hit each other. The chances of this happening are so remote its ridicules. OK so lets say it happened now we into making plankton and that turning into man. Evolution can happen but only advance or make more resilient. like rats to poison they become immune. So how does the human eye evolve, its made up of several independent parts that are useless alone, but together work. How can it evolve several independent parts into a functions end product. It would be like me delivering a load of scrap metal an plastic into someones garage and then driving out a new car, impossible.

      But the Bible tells us then G-d made every thing with an age the trees were not all saplings, Adam and Eve were not babies having need of a mother to change them. They had an age, the trees bore fruit. The animals were not pups or eggs or cubs. They were all given an age to be of use to the world. Just like the rocks and the moon and stars.

      Sorry I am not very good at explaining things or with spelling and punctuation. But we were put here to be a pleasure to G-d not to please ourselves and to do what we want. We are living in the Laodicean Church age. We are so luke warm that G-d wants to spue us out better we were hot or cold.

      Shalom

  • Dan

    I forgot to mention in my previous comment that aside from all the events that took place after the exodus, there were also ten plagues which took almost a year to go through. How can human authors possibly fool anyone into believing that they witnessed a years worth of the most bizarre things that had never been seen before? In addition to this, I felt that I could present myself better if you, the reader gets a full scope of what a million people looks like. This is a photo of 100,000 people at an Obama rally: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/dubo
    Note that the edges of the picture are cut off so its slightly more than this. This is only 100,000 people. Now multiply that by ten. Imagine trying to start a religion by lying to a million people and telling them that they personally took part in one of the most critical points in history and that they witnessed all of it with their own eyes. Then try telling them that they must live by a complex set of rules involving 613 commandments which limit their ability to live the way they want to live, for the rest of their lives for all their generations until the end of time. It is not physically possible to get away with such a lie. The Bible must have been written by a higher being.

    • LariLee

      If you've ever seen The Exodus Decoded, they suggest that a gigantic volcano explosion thousands of miles away caused all of the plagues. What amazes me is that Moses told everyone which was going to happen and when.

      • dan

        Let us say for arguments sake that it was a volcano. This must have been a really intelligent volcano because it knew exactly how long to create a plague so that each plague lasted for the same exact amount of time, each one succeeding the next. Wow, that is truly an impressive volcano, one that no scientist has ever seen before. The volcano even knew exactly who was a firstborn among the Egyptians!! Amazing!! The volcano must have been in cahoots with Moses and told him all about his plans so that Moses could warn the Jews before it happened. I apologize for being harsh, I honestly do not mean to mock you. It just sounds so ridiculous to believe something like that. Even if you could somehow believe it this still does not account for every other story that happened in the Bible. As I have said before its impossible to suggest that the Bible did not come from G-d. I think the real problem that people have believing is because they see G-d as an imaginary friend since science seems to contradict everything the Bible says. If you read the Bible as a Christian then I can see why this could be a problem. However, this is not the true way to interpret the Bible. When the Jews received the Bible at Mount Sinai, they also received the Oral Law which taught the Jews how to interpret each passage and their hidden meaning. The literal Bible is ridiculous. It's like having a secret code without the key. For example: when the Bible says "an eye for an eye" it does not mean this at all. According to the Oral Law that G-d gave to the Jews it means that the person must pay the value of the person without his eye. This value is established by estimating how much this person could have earned as a servant and then subtracting how much he is worth without the eye, and then paying that difference. There are rules to reading the Bible which the Christians do not have. Of course its going to seem ridiculous if you read it literally! So when the Bible says that G-d created the world in 7 days, it has a much deeper meaning. The Bible talks about all that G-d created on the first day, and then it says "the first day". How could there have been a 24 hour day as we know if there was no sun yet? Obviously it has a deeper meaning. Gerald Shcroeder is a nuclear physics professor who has also studied earth and planetary science. He wrote a book called The Science of G-d in which he reconciles the scientific record with the Bible according to its deeper understanding. Science has never provided conclusive evidence that G-d does not exist. Scientists have just mocked the Bible according to the way the world reads it because it seems so ridiculous that the world is only 5000 years old. The Jews have the key to the Bible so its ridiculous to accept any outside groups' interpretation of it.

        • What is the point of hyphenating God?

          • LariLee

            Some believe the name of God is sacred. I believe Orthodox Jews for one will use the hyphen so they aren't using the name in vain. Usually, in conversing with someone who feels that way, I will adopt the vowel-less G-d so they do not feel uncomfortable.

        • LariLee

          You seem a bit sarcastic in your reply. However, all of the plagues of Egypt could be explained naturally. What cannot be explained is how one man knew what was going to happen and when. That would be a miracle.

          But, to play devil's advocate… how do you know any of the Children of Israel needed to be fooled? One could simply write after the fact. 100 years later, one could write almost anything and can rely on group mentality. Do you know how many people claim to have seen Kennedy's assassination? Quite a few more than were actually there. People pass along myth and rumor and will claim to be somewhere to have seen it happen. It's also easy to manipulate the ones who were there to get them to agree that they all saw the same thing.

          My personal take, not that I expect anyone to care, is that a divine force (G-d, if you prefer) created the universe. You can call that the big bang if you prefer. However, I don't believe the bible is the literal word of G-d and is infallible.

          • Dan

            I apologize for being sarcastic. You are right that it was uncalled for.

            I agree with you that one could have written the Bible later and used group mentality to convince people that it was true. However, the Jews have a record of of who transmitted the Bible to whom, in which generation, from the current day all the way back to Moses himself. When could the author have fooled people about events that didn't happen if there is a direct chain all the way back to Sinai? There has never been any record of the chain being broken. Each Jew receives his tradition from his father, who received it from his father before him all the way back. Lets say for arguments sake that a group of people was somehow fooled into believing that their ancestors had all these miracles happen to them. So there is this guy who is introducing a new way of life that all of these people have to agree to, to the point that they must give up their lives to protect it. I don't know if you truly understand how deep and complex the laws of Judaism actually are. Aside from all the direct commandments that were written in the Bible, there is an incredibly vast collection of knowledge and commandments recorded in the Oral law. How could somebody possibly get people to agree to restricting themselves to such a difficult degree? Even if he could convince them, to what end? The Bible never makes any mention of Heaven or Hell, or any sort of afterlife. What did such an author have to offer? In fact, such an author would have to live by all the laws that he made, or else people would know he was lying. How could anybody possibly benefit?

            I am sorry that I could not get a chance to watch Exodus Decoded. I know that I don't have much of an argument against the documentary as I did not watch it, but I did review the Wikipedia page for it. The page brings all the criticism against the documentary. I leave the judgment of said criticism up to you, but you must admit that some good points are brought down. For instance, in your previous post you described how it could be explained that only the firstborn people died since they slept on a lower level which would explain how only they would be killed by a poisonous gas. However, this does not explain how all the firstborn livestock died. Also, while the documentary describes how water level could have dropped to the point that the Israelites could have walked across on a sandbar, the Bible clearly states that there were walls of water surrounding the path which the Israelites walked down.

        • LariLee

          Actually, the firstborn Egyptian usually had the best bed and best bedroom. The other children would usually sleep on the roof, under the stars, where it was cooler. Any poisonous gas would affect those sleeping closer to the ground. The Israelites, however, sat up and ate and talked and weren't affected.

          Watch The Exodus Decoded and see how miraculous it all was. The miracle wasn't that the plagues happened. The miracle was that Moses knew what would happen beforehand and took steps to protect the Children of Israel.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Admin,

    How do I add an Avatar to my posts?

  • smarty

    NBB!!! yay!!! your back!! Now can ya please yell at dan some, he is kinda….unintellectual? i really dont know how to desribe his comments, but if i was, i dont think there would be much good comments.

    To Dan, please learn some stuff, or leave

    To admin, Yes im the same way (i bilieve in god and evolution). But im alittle diffenrent insted of a god, I believe in a indepentdent form of diesm, wich looks for the answers to the unerverse in nature. I believe that electristy created life, in much the same way it created the big boom. well not so much as electricty, but a strong energy like it, very very similer, and that, that same electricity is still running trough our viens, or nerves and brain actually, but no less, i believe that this "energy" keeps us alive. And I also believe in evolution, but an altered version of it, i dont belive we came directly from ape, but more of we have one same ansecter, that evolvedwith different needs, into different spieces, much the same as goats evolve, one in the appalations is way diferent then one in the rockys, wich is differnt than one in the alps, wich is differnt than one in the himmaleas, wich is different than one in alabama, they all have differnt needs, so they evolved differntly, but they all have one, commen ansector. I bileve that all "races" of human are really different spieces, and that all primates and humans, came from one commen ancestor, and evolved diffenrtly.

    To LariLee, welcome to this huge argument, and thank you for (trying to) helping (help) us with our Dan problome, but yopu too need to come woth more facts or a better argument, i am on my side, not evolution, not creatonism, so im not really in that big argument, but its still fun to wach everyone go at it.

    To guests reading our messgaes, COMMENT! tell us what YOU think

    • LariLee

      Thank you for the kind welcome, smarty. However, I think Dan is making sense; he just needs to figure out what he's arguing. Saying the Bible or Torah or Pentateuch is the literal word of G-d (or God, if you prefer) and arguing whether an Intelligent Being or God created the world or it was evolution are two totally different things.

      I simply find amusement, and occasional enlightenment, in playing the devil's advocate. And I find the same in the fact we're all here, arguing about something that is already posted under "The Top Ten Arguments that Can't be Won."

      As far as adding facts in my arguments, I don't think there are any. It's all opinion. Man evolved from ape? Show me the missing link. A Big Bang created the universe? What caused it? God made an intelligent, superior species? It sure isn't humans, so what species was it? 🙂 It's all conjecture. And any scientific fact is only yet unproven. After all, we laughed at the use of leeches medicinally hundreds of years ago, yet they're being used today as medicine today in hospitals. Life is a learning process.

      I shouldn't post before I had more Diet Pepsi.

      • NotoriousBigBrain

        Evolution is not an opinion Larilee. Even without the fossil record, genetics, microbiology and host of other disciplines verify evolution independently. The missing link is such an old term that it is no wonder you still think evolution is an opinion. I have commented many times on this subject, many, many times. I have listed a couple of well known books ( among the science literate that is.) Let me state more clearly, evolution is a fact with literally hundreds of thousands of experiments with the results to validate it to a scientific certainty. Or to put in an other way you can understand. Among scientists, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is accepted as gospel truth. If you are not sure about the meaning of the word "theory" as used by scientists, please see my post to "A6M$". It is about 10 posts above this one.

        For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied Zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.

        In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.

    • NotoriousBigBrain

      Faith and religious belief are not subjects I like to dabble in smarty. There need be no rhyme nor reason for what a person believes in, if it's a matter of faith. And that states it all. By the same token, if a person of faith says to me they believe in something because it has been verified by Science, my ears will immediately pop up. The bible is a book that by and large must be accepted by faith or completely dismissed as fairy tale and mythology. Science isn't going to waste time on such questions as whether or not there was an individual named Moses who was given a set of laws by a supposed deity named, "I am who am."

      Let people have faith in whatever and wherever reason and sanity have failed them. If it's beyond reason then it's beyond me. But be a fore warned people of faith. Don't trample on my science with your nonsense. I'm not going to drink a cup of hemlock and rollover and die like the great " father of reason" Socrates did just to make your fanatical life easier. There are more scientist living now than have ever existed on this planet in the past. Someday we will out number the religious fanatics that now terrorize this planet. Someday soon we will hold elected offices. And when that day comes, we will live without terror, for sanity and reason will have been restored to its proper place.

      • Oh, NBB! You keep me young. I had to chuckle at your insistence that a world ruled by science would be some type of utopia. Yes, there have been atrocities committed in the name of God, but certainly science has many actions that scientists would prefer to have swept under than rug as well.

        Look no further than the top 10 list from today: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-weirdest-cia-progra… and see what science was involved with. I'll post the top 10 evil scientists list I have this week and we can all see specific examples of how science can be used for evil or misguided purposes just as easily as religion.

        It all comes down to the humans using the tool, whether it be science or religion.

        • LariLee

          I admit the idea of a perfect Utopian society is a glorious one to consider. That humanity will reach that by turning to a scientific leadership made me giggle as well. 🙂 The only Utopian society that will ever exist will probably be the last two people alive on earth and will last less than sixty seconds.

          I'll agree in evolution up to the point that man evolved from apes. It's obvious that everything evolves. However, there is a jump in the fossil record that makes it conjecture. Even if scientists agree it is the most probable explanation, there still lacks one bit of conclusive evidence. Show me the fossil record with no gaps and I'll stop making jokes about monkeys' uncles. Maybe. Or maybe I'll start making them more.

          If I catch a copy of the book you recommended, I'll read it. However, your spirited "I won't swallow hemlock!" declaration is a bit over-the-top. I personally enjoy the fact that science and religion do complement each other so well.

          • LariLee – I read your comments and think, "That is exactly my thought as well." Now that should probably scare you a little…but I'm glad to know someone has similar opinions on this topic. Thanks for sharing, I'm always impressed.

          • LariLee

            Top Tenz Master wrote LariLee – I read your comments and think, “That is exactly my thought as well.” Now that should probably scare you a little…but I’m glad to know someone has similar opinions on this topic. Thanks for sharing, I’m always impressed.

            Honey, that should scare you far more than it scares me. Cheers!

        • LariLee

          Please don't forget Josef Mengele. Can't you just imagine the type of Utopian society he'd be in charge of?

          • smarty

            Whats wrong with Joesef Mengele?! I mean sure, he was mentally insain, cruel, but a visionary. Some of the things he disovered save way more lives then he took. Hes hated for his work, but someone had to do it, i respect him.

          • LariLee

            Smarty, please let me know which experimentation(s) that Mengele performed that saved more lives than he destroyed. I'd love to hear what valuable information he passed on.

  • smarty

    Oh! and gravity, IS a theyroy, along woith evolution and creationism, none are facts, none totally proven, and yes, creationism is a theyroy,k its not oroven, thats why its called "faith" your supposed to believe without facts, or not at all

    • NotoriousBigBrain

      Attention:
      smarty, if you really ever intend to pursue science as a profession, please read carefully this post I wrote to “A6M$” !

      A6M$, your statements here are complete and utter nonsense. Please first familiarize yourself with the word “Theory”. Because it seems quite obvious from your posted comments that what ever little education you have received in your life up to now, it has not included even the most rudimentary training in the understanding of science, its process and its function. There are two definitions to the word “Theory,”(actually there are more than two, but for our purpose we need only concern ourselves with these two.) .

      Theory

      Def. 1 : A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

      ******************************************************************************************************
      By this definition, evolution, or more precisely stated, “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation,” is indeed a scientific theory backed by hundreds of thousands of test results, experiments, and predictions substantiated by empirical evidence.

      In your statement, and I quote,”…saying evolution is just a theory doesn’t really change anything, as creationism is just as much a theory as evolution is. Neither one can be fully proved without doubt,” you show in great clarity your utter lack of understanding of the word, “Theory” as used by Science and scientists. Creationism, or the more currently used term,”Intelligent Design,” here after referred to as “ID” , is a hypothesis without any test parameter. It, ID, is not a theory as in the above given definition. In all likelihood it will always remain a hypothesis because there are not known ways ( which satisfy the criteria for science. You can get high on quaaludes, as many of you young people appear to be, and tell me you’ve spoken with god, but sorry that isn’t science.) to test for the existence of an intelligent designer. So no Virginia, there is no Santa Claus and Intelligent Design is not a (scientific) theory!

      *******************************************************************************************************
      And the definition you are only familiar with pumpkin…

      Theory

      Def. 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

      *******************************************************************************************************

      Indeed ID is a theory in the way you use the word, however it is not a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

      And without a testable parameter, a weak hypothesis at that !

      Please don’t confuse your lack of awareness of the immense amount of research being done on the mechanism of evolution worldwide in a wide range of diverse fields of science for a lack of evidence. I believe the correct definition for your current state or condition is,”Ignorant” and, “ill-informed”. Please familiarize yourself with these and the above stated definitions before attempting to continue passing yourself off as having a competent understanding of science, its process and its function. Moreover, from what I have read of your above posted comments it appears you are also deficient in a proper understanding of syntax and semantics.

      As my time is limited, I can only suggest that you spend more time in the library and take more science courses especially Physics and Biology. I suggest you search out all of my posted comments on this site. Unfortunately I have to deal with those ignorant and Ill-informed of science on a daily basis. However and just on occasion I will come across somebody who is well read and perhaps better informed than myself. On those rare occasions, I marvel in silence as like-minded individuals as yourself challenge them in their field or discipline of expertise with seemingly little or no competent working knowledge of the subject for which they speak.

      For those readers of this post who are truly interested in learning more about the evidence of evolution. I recommend highly Dr. Richard Dawkins,”The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution”. Dawkins studied Zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen.

      In addition I would also recommend,”The Evidence for Evolution,” by Dr. Jerry Coyne. Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship.

  • smarty

    See NBB, thats why everyone loves you, after reading your comments i have to just sit and stare at what you have just said in utter amazment. You can tell exactly what you want to say and say it, with just about as much facts, evidece, and anything to prove it as you can possable fit, and your intellagence is amazing, but i have to say, a wold, or "utopia" as toptenzmaster put it, of scientist, wouldnt really be all that grand. When there is a huge catastrophe, its easer to look up to a god, as fake or real as he might be, then to acsept facts and know noones up there to protect us. God is like a pasifier for humanity, and without him, the herds of ignorent people that fill our earth to the brim, will have there world turned uosidedown. With all the terrible events on earth, the people that cant stand them, turn to someone that can help them, and just believeing in him can help them, (and yes i say "him" because when the religon started anyone inportant was a "him". ) without that help we will have riots over the littlist things, and mad people running in the steets. So untill everyone can understandthe perdicamet humanity is constitly at, ill keep religon in humanity.

    btw, im going into biophysics yes, but more of studing the nevose system, not theyroys and hypothoses, but im sure i can use it somewhere, so thanks.

  • smarty

    He praciticlyy invited abortions, or atleast good way to do it, an he did the same for mulitple surgeries. He proved labotomes did no good to a patent, and descovered many secrets of our body, and things you can do with it. All of the thigs he disocvered directly killed hundreds, but the information saved thousands more on the orperting table.

    • LariLee

      I'm sorry, smarty, but you've been misinformed. Mengele did not invent nor perfect abortion. Abortions are mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath (as something doctors should not do). He did, however, perform abortions on the girlfriends of German soldiers and the female prisoners used in the soldiers' whorehouse.

      As far as the rest of your claims… Mengele's research was never released en masse during the war to German physicians. And it will never be released en masse to the general public. Most of his research was destroyed (by Germans trying to hide the scope of his — and their — crimes). So it's unlikely that any of his research saved "thousands of lives." No one will ever duplicate his work as that type of study on humans is forbidden by any ethical scientist/physician. The majority of his research seems to have been spent on changing appearances (eye color, skin color) or on the physical and psychic connection of twins or on autopsies. Nothing that changed lives for the better.

      Finally, lobotomies did not fall out of favor until the late 50s/early 60s and are still in use for some diagnoses. Admittedly, it's rarely used, but it is still used.

      Were these the best examples you could come up with?

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    TopTenz Master and Larilee,

    Dr. Mengele certainly had the credentials and the knowledge necessary to perform scientific (medical research). The question is–is that what he did? I don't believe any scientist now or in the '40s would consider his research to be Science. Though I am still doing research on Mengele's experiments. Up to now, I have found none that would have been of any interest to the science community in the 40's.

    Below is a quote by one who observed Dr. Mengele's research first hand.

    Auschwitz prisoner Alex Dekel has said: "I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he was doing serious work — not from the slipshod way he went about it. He was only exercising his power. Mengele ran a butcher shop — major surgeries were performed without anesthesia. Once, I witnessed a stomach operation — Mengele was removing pieces from the stomach, but without any anesthetic. Another time, it was a heart that was removed, again, without anesthesia. It was horrifying. Mengele was a doctor who became mad because of the power he was given. Nobody ever questioned him — why did this one die? Why did that one perish? The patients did not count. He professed to do what he did in the name of science, but it was a madness on his part"

    I place heavy emphasis on this first hand account. If Dr. Mengele had drugs available for anesthetizing the subjects of his experiments, but purposely chose not to use them, he would have to justify to any in the science community interested in the purpose and outcome of his (gruesome) experiments, how deliberately sending his subject into a state of shock would be conducive to promoting an outcome less likely to be tainted than by using anesthesia. Even in the '40s physical trauma was known to lead to shock or circulatory collapse, if not yet a well understood medical phenomenon.

    Dr. Mengele had to have known that performing surgery on an unanesthetized subject would most likely lead to rapid death due to shock. Thus I contend that although Dr. Mengele possessed the credentials and in all likelihood the knowledge and ability to produce scientifically competent research, it is unlikely that any of his experiments were Science worthy. (science fiction fitting for a SAW movie sequel, but not Science worthy.)

    Reluctantly, I will admit that Dr. Mengele credentials alone merit him the esteemed title of scientist, but none of his experiments as far as I can tell were science worthy even by the standards of his time. It is more likely that even Dr. Frankenstein's research would have been more science worthy in Mary Shelly's day than Dr. Mengele's.

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Toptenz Master,

    I certainly hope Dr. Mengele isn't the best you can up with for rogue scientists with a vent on harming humanity.

    • I'm sure you can come up with more on your own. I'm off to create the next list.

  • smarty

    fine you win 😛

    • LariLee

      Do I get a little trophy or something? 🙂

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.

    — Isaac Asimov, Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994

    • LariLee

      "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

      ~Albert Einstein

      • NotoriousBigBrain

        Your quote is often taken out of context LariLee. I have added some extra context so that reader can better understand Einstein's beliefs.

        This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds.

        The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person – in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.

        Einstein was Jewish, which is why the people of Israel asked him once to become Israel's second president. Also, Einstein felt uncomfortable with the idea that the Jews are God's favored People.

        "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise, I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them", said Einstein.

        Although, neither Einstein nor his parents were religious people, he did in fact attend the Catholic primary school. But at the age of 12 he was already questioning the truth of the stories written in the Bible. "The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression", Einstein wrote.

        Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature. He once said that "God does not throw dice", meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted.

        "Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions… but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.

        Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist.

        • LariLee

          I was tweaking you a bit with that quote, NotoriousBigBrain. In my opinion, I think we've yet to find the absolute truth on God or evolution. But, bless you, you come off as totally intolerant of anyone else's opinion and expect everyone to be familiar with your references, that I have the urge to proselytize, bang a tambourine while calling the angels for blessings on your head. It's the same feeling when dealing with a religious zealot, except then I point out inconsistencies in the Bible, speak of scientific discoveries and offer to sacrifice small barnyard animals to Baal.

          I'll admit, I enjoy researching some of the items you've pointed out. Yet this is an argument that cannot be won, even if you routinely point out that you're so much more intelligent than those who you are arguing with.

  • JCop

    I have a question?

    If man creates robots with A.I. (artificial Intelligence) Does that not make us "God" to them (the robots)?

  • There is no “proof” of YHWH elohim creating all that exists in six 24-hour days, about 6140 years ago. We Biblical Christians accept it on faith, based on the first-Person testimony of the only Person who was there to witness it all.

    But here are several disproofs of evolution.

    1. The Cambrian Explosion.

    2. Interspecies (“between kinds”) specimens, which would be evidence of a process of change from one species to another, are generally absent from the fossil record.

    3. Irreducible complexity. Consider a mousetrap with its five component parts. It cannot evolve from one part to two parts to… five parts. Either it originates as a complete functional unit, or any predecessor would be totally nonfunctional and unfit for natural selection.

    Consider an eye, the human eye, or any animal’s eye. It is so complex that man cannot duplicate its versatility, accuracy, and detail, yet any previous version with any part missing.would be totally nonfunctional and unfit for natural selection.

    Consider a cell, a single cell amoeba, or any living cell. Evolution might have passed muster when we were ignorant of the inner workings of cells. But with increasing knowledge comes increasing responsibility. Knowing the elegant processes and machines that operate inside even a simple cell, without which it would not be alive, to assert that it came to be from some lower life form is naive, intellectually irresponsible, and an insult to those who know better (by faith in God and His word).

    4. The mystery of life. With all of man’s elaborate laboratory equipment and the experimental extremes of electricity and magnetism, gravity and centrifugal force, heat and humidity, and atmospheric composition, man has never created life from non-living substances. He has never even observed it happening, anywhere in the universe.

    5. “The appearance of age” and the observed increases in red shift in spectra of stars during the past 60 years. The Doppler Effect cannot account for increasing recessional velocities of stars in a universe which is represented by the “F=m?a” Newtonian mechanics which astronomers have universally observed, so far. On the other hand, the general theory of relativity does account for such increases in red shift, by attributing them to increasing gravitational forces in stars as they gradually collapse and become increasingly dense. This eliminates the so-called “evidence” of an expanding universe of stars at distances of up to 72,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles, arrival at which would have required some 13 or 15 or however many billions of earth years after a Big Bang.

    Without those billions of years, “evolution of the species by chance mutation and natural selection” could not have happened. Anyone who brings up C-14 and polonium decay can expect a debunking there as well, just not from this party. Simply understand that God created carbon in whatever form and quantity He chose, and He created that carbon in whatever original ratio of C-12 to C-14 He chose, as well.

    6. The statistical record of chance mutations indicates that mutating specimens nearly always devolve, debase their DNA information, and lose their self-preserving ability to survive, rather than the reverse. That is why there are so many more people with mental, emotional, and physical handicaps than there are individuals harnessing nuclear fusion for an energy source, or making peace between Mus|ims and their sworn enemies, the “infidel” Christians and Jews.

    7. Evolution would require DNA information to increase and become better organized. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, that energy tends to spread out from local concentrations to being dispersed. The second law stipulates that closed systems tend to disorder rather than to organization; that the available energy in a closed system becomes less and less available; and that entropy, or dispersal of energy, constantly increases across the totality of a closed system.

    But God transcends any closed system.

    A group of agnostic scientists decided that God was getting in the way of progress, and His services were no longer required. So they sent a representative to the Almighty, who stated their case thusly:

    “God, we greatly appreciate all you have done for us, creating humankind by whatever process you used. And that part about giving your only begotten son as a sacrifice for our sins was just totally awesome, beyond human imagination. We are so grateful for the historical record you gave us in your book, at least the part after those first eleven chapters – you know, the myths and fables?

    “But we have progressed and evolved in knowledge to the point where we can take it from here. So how about you just bug off, OK?”

    To which the Creator and Sustainer of the universe replied with deep compassion:

    “Before you go condemning yourselves to a Christ-less eternity apart from the Giver of all good gifts, I will need to see some evidence that you are really capable of maintaining at least your own tiny blue planet, for whatever time there is left. I created your kind from clay and My own breath of life. Can you do the same?”

    The representative scientist hesitated and stammered, “W-w-w-well, w-w-we’ve been trying to do that. Let me give it a try here with You helping,” and he reached down and scooped up a handful of dirt.

    “Oh, no!” the Creator said. “You get your own dirt.”

    Scientifically speaking, within a universe diagrammed by Newtonian mechanics, the first law of thermodynamics states that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only the Creator God, who transcends time and space, mass and energy, could have created all that exists ex nihilo. When Christians get to the throne of grace, some of us will ask the Lord Jesus how He made, from that which did not exist, everything which was made.

    When agnostic evolutionists get to wherever they’re going after this life, some of them will ask the author of the theory of evolution how he deceived so many people, to their own destruction. But then it will be too late. “It is appointed to man once to die, and after that, the judgment.”

    • Big Bob

      Ok, I think I understand what you're saying and this is – "I don't have an explanation for anything so I'm taking the easy way out and saying the invisible man just did it all".

      Thanks for clearing that up for us.

    • NotoriousBigBrain

      Complete and utter nonsense!

      Why not learn from scientists about Science (and in particular Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection) instead of passing your misinformation on to the public.. Your form of religious condemnation of those who find it difficult to stomach your brand of ignorance, is laughable at best and just repugnant and disgusting in general. Who cares what you think your imaginary god is going to do to any person who doesn't follow you line of insanity. There is no rhyme or reason to you set of beliefs. Why should people who follow the conviction of scientific inquiry care whether it contradicts you or your religious beliefs?

      As I read through your post, I see that you are fond of passing judgment and damnation on to those who don't ascribe to your narrow set of beliefs. And as I grow older and wiser (lol) it becomes more and more apparent, religion and science can not co-exist peaceably. Really the greatest threat to science is individuals like yourself. Those who feign the pretense of scientific knowledge without the substance.

    • 4realsies

      1 How does that disprove evolution? explosion is a buzzword, it still happened over millions of years.

      2 Every fossil is a transitional species.

      3 Irreducible complexity is a joke, arguments from ignorance, look up what happened to it at the dover trial.

      4 Nope, we havnt and it took the whole planet a billion years to make it happen too, still we have some good leads. Abiogenesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

      Wheres the proof for your abracadabra hypothesis?

      5 What are you babbling about? “god done it” is a lazy answer and completely worthless. does saying “god done it” cure cancer? understanding how and why mutations happen cures cancer, but whoops, that evolution so you would rather make like that guy in the bible, forget who- sat on a pillar for years praying, then one day a worm burrows out of his skin, he concludes the worm must have been put there by god, so he pushes it back in. great moral there, curl up and die :/

      6 No, theres more to it than genetics, most people are fully functional, yet because of social and economical factors they never get a chance to take a course in nuclear science, or even an appetite to look it up for themselves. Maybe you should give it a shot, look into which specific things in your dna being out of place cause which genetic diseases, fascinating stuff.

      dont get me started on israel, if a bunch of violent immigrants showed up in your hometown, rioting, driving people out of their homes in the middle of the night and blowing buildings up, you would call them your sworn enemies too- even if they claimed their invisible friend in the sky said it was ok. Irgun and the King David Hotel bombing, look it up.

      7 no idea what your perception of organization has to do with anything, but as far as closed systems, the sun is part of our system, bam, energy.

      that account seems awfully contrived no? This conversation definitely didnt take place, maybe people would take you seriously if you stopped making things up?

    • Peter

      No offence, but there was so much writing there that I got bored of reading it.

      All I wanted to say was that centrifugal force doesn't actually exist.

  • calbayogcity

    Chicken or egg- I eat the egg for breakfast, the chicken for lunch.

    Gun control- the ability to hit the target in the same general area consistantly

    Conservative approach says that if you do not like guns, don't buy them or own them. Liberal approach says if they dont like them, then NO ONE should have them.)

    God- why not? and are we the only ones in this (or any other) universe , either with or without intelligence?

    Euthanasia- It is ok for pets, why not humans, also?

    Death penalty- In the end, it really matters only to the one who is to be executed.

    Abortion- see death penalty

    Evolution vs Creation- they can and do co-exist

    Nature/Nuture- see Evolution

    Free will/Destiny-Who cares, as long as others' rights are not infringed?

    Morals- see free will

  • Jess

    It was the chicken who came first!

  • YHWH elohim (the Lord God) created me and my kind.

    If monkeys created you, you have my sincerest heartfelt sympathy and prayers for your adoption into God's family.

  • j.a.switzer

    Decent list. I agree that most of these can't arguments can't really be won except for evolution vs creation. The two can co-exist depending if you take the bible as a figurative text rather then a literal text so in most cases they don't need to be argued. In any event evolution is a proven fact so any argument regarding its validity is pointless.

  • A puzzle for all you Creation-deniers:

    If the universe is irrational, then from that chaos, rationality and order have evolved, and disorder has decreased, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So let us assume a “rational universe” where the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics hold true.

    The Big Bang Theory states that the universe exploded either ex nihilo, or from a pre-existing black hole or other concentration of mass and energy.

    1. “Everything exploded from nothing” contradicts Newton’s first law, that mass-energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That requires a Creator Who transcends the universe, Who has made Himself known as YHWH elohim in Genesis 1, and more specifically as the Logos, God the Son, in John 1.

    2. “Everything exploded from pre-existing mass and energy” requires either

    a) a transcendent Creator to create the “pre-existing mass and energy” (see #1), or

    b) an infinite regression of prior cycles of “Big Bang, expanding universe, collapsing universe, concentration of mass and energy.”

    “Infinite regression of cycles of Big Bang and collapse” means that the universe has been “running down” for an infinite extent of time. (For an almost infinite extent of time: see #1.) The second law of thermodynamics, that energy tends to spread out from local concentrations to being dispersed, requires that available energy decreases over time. Over an infinite extent of time, available energy decreases to nil. However, available energy is NOT nil, so the universe is NOT cycling in an infinite extent of time (see #1).

    The above argument disproves the possible alternatives to transcendent creation. But the existence of the Creator cannot be proved, “for he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is” (Hebrews 11:6).

    • Juan

      The laws of physics, thermodynamics, and all other disciplines and sciences came into being AFTER the Big Bang, in the first second. Ask any qualified researcher, don't just post. And "faith" is unprovable. Prove that I am not a God in disguise.
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang

  • Ri

    Come on!! The chicken OBVIOUSLY came first!

  • Jim K

    I didn't have time to read everything because it's a lot of the same thing over and over again, but just remember, the people who wrote the bible thought the world was flat!

    • Peter

      Actually, they didn't. This is an unfounded urban myth.

  • Kim

    How interesting reading everyones opinions and beliefs. How amazing humans are that we can think about creation of life and existence in such ways!

    As a non believer of any religion I wouldnt want to argue about if God or a Creator exsists? However as a person who has worked alongside people in emotional distress who DO believe, I have come to realise the strength that faith can give people! I have seen people face their death at peace simply because they believe. …The most precious thing that can happen to them is about to end, and yet they are at peace. How beautiful is that! How powerful is that!!

    Whether God actually exists seems irrelivent if the act of believing brings happiness to a person? Surely, God is only relevant to the person who believes in Him? I dont belive in God, I dont recognise the power of religion, it gives me no strength and no direction. Therefore it is not relevent to me or my life? That doesnt mean I cant apreciate that the next person may exsist because of their God? I exsist because my mother and father reproduced. My friend exsists because his God created him. The fact that we exsist and are friends who care and have each other is all that really matters. "Whatever is at the center of our life will be the source of our security, guidance, wisdom, and power." ~ Stephen Covely

    I am amazed by the different theories such as the Big Bang and Evolution. I believe the questions of the Universe are endless and exactly why/how we are here are something we will always be trying to answer and never will hold ALL the answers, but how amazing that we are trying anyway!!!!!

    The fact we humans strive to find answers, that we want to know how things work and why they dont? why the dinosaurs died out? how long the sun will burn for? does God exsist? did Evolution happen? all these questions point to us trying to make sense of WHY WE EXSIST? Why are WE important to this Universe we exist in? Would it REALLY matter if we were not here??? Is there some part of us, some hidden insecurity within us that can only feel safe in answers and evidence? Why else would it be so important?

    I do believe that each and every one of us has something to contribute to exsistence on this planet and it has nothing to do with arguments of 'God' or how we 'evolved'. Each and every person, animal, plant, cell… has an individual and unique affect on life. This world simply WOULD NOT be the same in some way if you did not exsist. The world would always be missing something precious and unique….something very important……YOU!!!

    I believe it doesnt really matter why or how we have come to exsist? The important thing is that we do and we are! We have an amazing gift of life to apreciate no matter how we choose to live it or what we choose to believe.

    We're all winning sperms, how amazing are we????!! Congratulations everyone!!!!

    Kim 🙂

    "A life – one little gleam of time between two eternities" -Thomas Carlyle

  • NotoriousBigBrain

    Bravo Toptenz !!!

    I just stumbled across your new list, (well, it's new to me)" Top ten recent signs evolution is real". I'm both surprised and impressed. I haven't been to this site in a while and you spring this on me. How the world turns, indeed ! Keep up the good work!!!

    Best wishes

    NBB

  • JF

    pfft, this should have been titled "several arguments that have already been settled for decades, mis-characterized to make the arguments seem viable".

    the evolution/creationism debate was settled over 150 years ago. if you wanna say "god did it", fine, but dont try to dictate that how it happened/currently works is compatible with your bronze age creation myth. and dont get hung up about "dont call me a monkey" or whatever, youve always been a monkey just the the cowardly lion always had a heart.

    nature vs nurture? why the false dichotomy? they both have an effect.

    gun control- what makes people peaceful? the knowledge that attacking a random person on the street might lead to a gun in their face. yeah sure, its good to have a society where everyone isnt a criminal just because they know its wrong, but optimism isnt ironclad.

    euthanasia- you can put it in your will that if you're braindead your family ought to have the plug pulled, nice and easy. put it in your will today, sure beats soaking your family for hundreds of thousands of dollars as you rot away for years.

    death penalty is no deterrent it seems, but its a whole lot cheaper than warehousing people for life.

    low blow with the abortion cartoon, NO ONE says life starts at birth. the standards we have in place are fine.

    free will and destiny are both phony concepts, you do your best and what happens happens. you arnt entitled nor are you autonomous.

    morals are relative, not to the individual, but to society- what does harm? bam, wasnt that easy.

    chicken or the egg? easy, the egg. theres never been a chicken that didnt start out as an egg.

    does god exist? lack of proof for IS evidence against. checkmate, wasnt that simple?

    • Jim

      it must be nice to be so positive about things….even though you are not necessarily correct in all cases and are totally wrong in a couple areas.

    • Darren

      JF says G-d doesnt excist lol so easy. So why there Proof of Noahs Ark, Soddom and Gohmorrah. Never mind the fact why they couldnt send a rocket to the moon until they included the times the Earth stood still. Or the lunar lander was made so it could land on dust because there billions of years of dust up there but when they got there there on a few inches. Pfft. He says lol I say. Stop being so blind and trying to blind others.

      When will you believe when the Jews rebuild the temple. The chief corner stone still there. The stones are ready to be laid. You be telling me you believe in the big bang I mentioned in another post.

      I pray you get eye salve so you can see, so the scales drop from your eyes and you see more clearly. In Jesus name.

      You condemn The Word of G-d but have probably never read it as it should be read. Ivan Panin a Russian mathmatician didnt believe in G-d and set out to prove the Bible was a work of man. Ivan Panin essentially combined the various Greek manuscripts into one Spirit-inspired Greek text. So confident was he that this was God's design that he challenged anyone to write even one paragraph using numerics and matching the system which God included in original scriptures. He offered a prize of $200.00 dollars which at that time was equivalent to thousands and no one was able to meet the challenge!

      Needless to say he became a believer. This is why people would rather just comdemn the Word of G-d otherwise they might be influenced by it and actually start to believe.

      • 4realsies

        First off, you cant even spell exist, so I guess I must be getting trolled, but whatever, it would be a tragedy if someone read what you wrote here and agreed with any of it.

        Noah's ark doesnt exist. No clue what you're even claiming with sodom and gomorrah, did a town with that name exist? Maybe. Are the claims about what took place true? No.

        The earth never stood still. Supposing you were trying to jump from a dock to a moving boat, why would it matter that at some point in the past the boat had been still? take physics.

        billions of years of dust? several things are wrong with that: you assume a constant rate of dust settling, you assume dust isnt being blown away, you assume dust isnt turning into sedimentary rock. again, get an education.

        Yeah, the big bang was actually thought up by Georges Lemaître a catholic priest.

        You dont seem to have read the bible either, its a compilation of stories. numerology is BS.

        • Darren

          First of all 4realsies, start undermining his ability to spell and so undermine his answer.

          Well no I didnt get top marks in spelling no I dont no the capitals of all the countries around the world. No I dont bully kids. Yes I have got criminal record. Any more personal info you need to prove or disprove my opinion? Does colour matter in my opinion to race? How about gender? You be moaning next Im not using punctuation correct or the wrong font. Smith Wigglesworth couldnt write very well either. When asked about his spelling saying you spelt a word wrong several times in different ways each time. He said "is man so limited that he can only think of one way to spell a word"

          You are also judge and jury to my comments and other peoples opinions to them. What tradgic loss would happen if they Believed in God. They might get to Heaven. But as put by a 13 year old Born Again believer when asked what if Gods not real. She said "I will be dead if hes not real" Then she asked the reporter "But what will happen to you when you die and God is real?"

          I never wrote the Bible fact. Several people did inspired by God. Ivan Panin proved it was written by one person over thousands of years.

          Scientists have spent 1000s of hours and and prob millions of pounds looking for the Ark but you can say it dont egcist (opps spelling mistake) in a simple word. Wow you either so clear you know it all or . . .hmm I not going to lower my self to a negative comment.

          As for dust falling onto any planet do you think it will just blow away do you think the meteors and asteroids that hit the surface the dust will just blow away? Blow away to where the other side of the planet or to a big hole like a iron filing to a magnet. Wake up my friend.

          You mention a catholic priest invented big bang so scientists are not hung up over it. and you dont believe the Bibles version so what happened. How did we get here?

          I have read and listen to the Bible almost everyday. How can you pass another of your throw away comments by saying I have not read it? Its not a compilation of stories its a book of hard facts all of which will come to pass wit or with our you believing.

          • 4realsies

            Its a matter of effort. Are you trying to communicate idea's or just say things to yourself that make you feel good?

            Yes, what happens when you devalue human live because you are caught up in this fantasy of the immortal spirit? spanish inquisition: torture people until they confess, then killed them or simply tortured them until they die, then trot out this afterlife nonsense to give everyone a warm fuzzy about violently murdering an innocent person. or how about jonestown? a church decides it wants to make its own godly community out in the middle of no where, things get pretty bad and they wind up drinking poisoned cool aid because they believe that they will go to heaven: thats where the expression dont drink the cool aid comes from fyi. oh yeah SUICIDE BOMBERS.

            dont pascals wager me, it isnt a trivial investment to have to encumber yourself with belief in and a lifestyle according to the belief in a god.

            This one life is all you have, dont wasted it. Want to know how to cure cancer? better figure it out while you're still alive.

            panin didnt prove jack, all he did was tell people what they wanted to hear. he's on the same stature as a fortune teller or medium.

            there is no ark because the flood didnt happen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wa_ey3jGPs

            you see those big craters on the moon? know how the moon doesnt have much gravity? yeah, BOOM, blown off the moon, same reason it doesnt have much of an atmosphere.

            big bang to us, made easy http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB2353755

            hard facts? sorry kid, you dont know what a fact is. you havnt substantiated a single claim you have made. tell me, how do you read the bible? just skimming along looking for things that make you feel good? do you ever stop and say, "really"? and go try and find out if its claim are true?

          • Darren

            Spoting off again. 4real without answering questions put to you? Very impolite you know.

            Idea I have many, but my idea and fraut with faults and misconceptions. Unlike the Word of God. Every number every cloour means something. If you want to stick your head in the sand my friend that is your choice. But when you need help God wont fail you. When you or a member of your family suffering from a terminal illness, will your faith in the big bang save them, will your faith in thinking there is no God. Even the demons tremble at the Name of Jesus. And they full of pride to.

            As for cure to cancer why you want that. Dont you know how much they have in cash? Do you think the treatment will be free when all the people world wide have paid for it lol. Cancers are curable NOW!

            Zeitgeist: Addendum. Is this what you have your faith based in? Is your whole life entrusted to the corupted goverments out there no matter what country you from they all come under one rule. Why?

            I have told you a few facts if you dont want to listen ok. But you try make others fall into the same pit as you. Why? Dont you want to be alone in it so you try an decieve as many as possible. This is your choice. Dont encourage other to make the same mistake.

            How many people in a plane about to crash land start praying. Dont wait till your plane is about to crash to make up the lost time. Celebrate now in the love and joy of Salvation. People say its a crutch to lean on that is a joke you stand in the middle of a street and start preaching and then tell me its a crutch.

            God bless you my friend and I pray you not found wanting in your last days in Jesus (Yeshua= Saviour in Hebrew another coincidence) name.

  • "Abortion vs Pro-life", "Evolution or Creation?", "Gun control" and "Death Sentence". None of these are really debated in Norway. No death sentence is dealed, guns are for shooting range or hunting only (and maybe as a result of this, people are not being shot all the time), creation is widely regarded as a metaphor by the religious part of the population (and evolution is taught in all public schools – special religious schools, though, are allowed to teach both theories), and lastly one can have an abortion by choice if bearing is harmful to the mother, or if she chooses it before the fetus has reached a certain stage. Very few people disagree with any of these issues.

  • Rob Heusdens

    @gospelmidi

    Look up some real cosmology to see how the puzzles you fantasize about are being solved.

    The "creation ex nihilo" is not and never was a possible model of the universe, the big bang does not imply that, and most of the puzzles involed with big bang theory have been solved using the theory of cosmological inflation. This includes the second law.

    #creation or no creation?

    If you believe the existence of the world is in need of a creator, then the only mystery to be solved is why there is a creator instead of no creator. In most cases the creationist responds to this that the creator has existed always, or transcends time. But a simpler and more straightforward answer would be that the world itself has existed always, and hence no creation occured and no need of a creator. As explained but he 1st law of thermodynamics, matter/energy can not be created or destroyed, only be transformed from one form in the other.

    • gospelmidi

      You presuppose no Creator and no point in time for the origin of creation. This implies that the universe has been “running down” for an infinite extent of time.

      The second law of thermodynamics, that energy tends to spread out from local concentrations to being dispersed, requires that available energy decreases over time. Over an infinite extent of time, available energy decreases to nil. However, available energy is NOT nil, so the universe has NOT existed for an infinite extent of time.

      The creation account and genealogies in the Bible state that God (elohim) created the heavens and the earth about 6140 years ago. If you reject the first-person testimony of the Creator Who was there, in favor of the speculations of agnostic ("not knowing") so-called scientists, your results may vary. Those varying results will lead you to other results not founded upon God's Truth.

      • Rob Heusdens

        Your representation of the 2nd law/entropy is nonsense, you forget the effects of an expanding universe and the effects of gravity on entropy. Those effects clearly show the universe is not running down in entropy, this only happens in local (gravity bound) systems.

  • 4realsies

    Well Darren, the clumsy formatting of this forum wont let me reply to your post directly, but I absolutely must reply. First off, accusing me of not answering your questions may serve as a defense mechanism when you are having a conversation, but here, everything is written down, I and any other spectator's can simply scroll up a line and see that I had addressed every one of your questions and statements. That says alot about you, it would seem that you dont actually care, you're just trying to save face: you're anonymous for goodness sake, drop the posturing.

    If the word of god is the bible, then it is indeed fraught with misconceptions: heres a list

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt

    Sadly, your faith in your invisible friend wont prolong their life, however, the medicine that human endeavor has yielded will help. what does that have to do with the big bang? you're attempting to ridicule me and its just making you look ridiculous, or I guess you're just a troll.

    now you are claiming that there is such a thing as a demon, and it exhibits the behavior "fear" when you mention your other invisible friends name?

    cancer can be treated, people still die from it. you want to make a difference with your life or just let the rest of society carry you the whole way?

    corrupt governments? so thats how it is huh? if the real world isnt perfect, you're just going to throw up your arms and live in imagination land? find a problem? fix it.

    Im in a pit? arnt you just so full of yourself. do something with your life and you wont need imaginary friends to tell you that youre special.

    • Darren

      You must be hurting so much because all you do it call me names in various forms and that is all you keep doing.

      “you cant even spell”

      “it would be a tragedy if someone read what you wrote here and agreed with any of it.”

      “You dont seem to have read the bible either”

      “sorry kid”

      “I had addressed every one of your questions and statements. That says alot about you, it would seem that you dont actually care, you’re just trying to save face: you’re anonymous for goodness sake, drop the posturing”

      “you’re attempting to ridicule me and its just making you look ridiculous, or I guess you’re just a troll”

      "Im so full of self"

      You have taken it upon yourself to make comments to me about my belief and dont want anyone else to believe it. Just Like (Doubting) Thomas Didymus In John 11:16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

      This is the point in his life where he cursed himself and from then on he became a self appointed speaker for the people. Just like you and also from here he used the term "we" to carry more emphasis as though others were in agreement with him.

      To just read the Bible like a normal book you will miss soo much. But to understand The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and every hebrew letter and number has a meaning (look up the value of "W" it is Vav v and w are the same letter in Hebrew) Colours mean so much to. But also even things like the names of the people tell another story hidden in the text. The names of the Towns where Jesus went also tell another story. What does Bêth lehem mean House of Bread. All the town names have a meaning.

      I could keep showing you more and more information that HAS been researched by me and by others BUT if you want to close you eyes to the truth then who am I to make you do something you dont want to.

      As for answering my questions no you didnt I asked you if my race colour creed social standing has any bearing on what information I am sharing. You didnt answer there are others but no matter. What does matter is Why a man who to some is a Saviour (Yeshua = Jesus) and brings Salvation = Yeshuah. Yet to others is a derogatory word. Also why if He means nothing do people say "Christ" why do people say "Oh God" Why crumbs? why bloody? There are so many words tied up in His name and in His life. But They mean nothing Open you eyes my friend. This body is temperal but our spiritual body is eternal.

      God Bless you my friend and may the Blood of Jesus cleanse you and may the truth make you eternally free in Jesus Name

      Shalom

      • 4realsies

        If you're going to show it, then show it, dont give me a long post telling me about how Im soooo mean, and theres all these facts, but you're not going to present them because Im so mean.

        I didnt mention your race, color or creed- this is about your idea's.

        Now, eternity. Why is such a thing important to you? You wernt alive forever before being born, what evidence do you have for life forever after death? Its a product of wishful thinking, fear and people being told what they want to hear.

  • Frances

    I just came here to see the list, but the comments appear to be even more entertaining. Debate is what makes the world go round, I suppose.

    Now I have something to ask; someone told me that birds are closely linked to crocodiles, and that there's some theory about birds having 'dinosaur' genes that are simply 'switched off'(I'm not scientifically-literate, so my friend had to make it easier for me to understand it using those terms.). Do you think it's true?

  • Frances

    Oh and I agree with abortion by the way, at least until it can be safely assumed that the only people in the world having sex are of age and are actually mentally prepared as well as mature enough for parenthood.

    Of course, adoption is always an option, but what I'm trying to say is that you wouldn't even be focusing on the issue of abortion if you were able to control people from having sex when they're not even ready. I think that's the real issue.

  • sAMiaM

    Why do some still ask if there is a God? When one looks at a simple watch, television, computer or any other apparatus, one is 100% CONVINCED that there is a creator and that it came to be because someone designed it, took the time to build it and that is why we have such things…. If we found a chair in the middle of nowhere, just because its in an apparent desolate place, we would not think that it just simply came to be… or if we put a bunch of wood, cement, glass, metal, tubes etc and piled it all on top of a bomb and blew it up… would we think we would get a house out of that? NO… Yet some still believe in the BIG BANG?!! Just look and see how everything is in perfect balance… life, nature, phisycs… Evil is not the abscence of God… it is the abscence of good in humans

    • John Alex

      You are ignorant what the big bang was for one, and balance is just part of nature and you should look all the flaws in nature by the way.

      PS you misspelled Physics

    • 4realsies

      Thats because we see watches being designed and paintings being painted. We also see stars exploding, all day every day. We see new solar systems forming out of clouds of stellar debris, and we see how our solar system was formed in the same manner. Like I said, if you want to attribute all of this happening to your imaginary friend, super, but dont try and tell us it isnt happening when we can see it happening in every direction above our heads.

      • sAMiaM

        @ 4realsies: Your comment only shows how narrow minded some people are. Yes, we see things around us that were made and we believe that they were created because, as you said, we can SEE it happening. But I bet you would NOT jump off a building just because you CAN'T see gravity. You KNOW it exists, thus you won't jump off! We accept, without questioning them, many things we cannot see like odors, radio waves, the air we breath…. If we see a painting or an sculpture we do not doubt the existence of the artist or sculptor, but its funny how, when we see how amazing the human body is or a simple sunset (things FAR more complicated than a work of art), some don't even consider the possibility of a Great "Artist" or "Sculptor".

        You want to talk about a watch. Well, it has been proven that planets in our solar system and the stars in the universe are by far more precise than most man-made watches.

        Earth. If you found a house in the middle of nowhere that was well equipped with all utilities, would you say that it evolved from a rock and came to be? You seem like a pretty knowledgeable person and I'm sure you know how the water cycle works, as well as the gases in the right quantities that make up the atmosphere. You know that earth is located at the right distance from the sun to make life possible, that it moves just at the right speed to keep itself in orbit. Yet it just came to be over millions of years just like that house in the middle of nowhere….right?

        How about modern supercomputers… we have them because the machines evolved by themselves right? Or would you say it was because intense investigation and careful engineering that they came to exist? If you know anything about the human brain you have a vague idea of how complex it is and how it allows us to learn other languages, appreciate beauty, compose music, etc…. yet it just "came to be" thanks to evolution?

        And as for my "imaginary" friend, I ask.. if he is imaginary… why is it that when people still believed the earth was held by elephants and a giant turtle, the Bible talked about it being held by NOTHING?(Job 26:7) This was written about 3,000 years ago! Centuries before it was scientifically proven.

        Or how about its shape… when explorers where afraid to fall off the edge of the flat planet, the Bible had already talked about its spherical shape (Isaiah 40:22) This was written about 2700 years ago and it wasn't widely accepted until the Renaissance when it was scientifically proven.

        The Bible is not a science book, but you would be surprised that even DNA is discussed in it. But hey, if I'm just "imagining" all this, then I guess that is all it is…

        • John Alex

          I wouldn't really call the universe "precise", sure there are patterns but that is do to how matter interacts.

          Sure earth is prefect for our forms of life but that is because we formed here and formed to match how the earth is. It wouldn't make any sense for life to evolve so the earth wasn't a good place for it.

          as far as the earth being the right distance from the sun first of all that distance can vary by quite a bit and still have the right temperatures for life, second think about how many stars there are most of which have planets which by pure random chance quite a few will have planets at the right distance

          Earth travels the right speed to stay in its orbit because how far out its orbit is determines how fast it goes that is how they have geosynchronous satellites they are just orbiting at the right altitude to be moving at the same speed as the earth spins.

          Ok, on how amazing the human brain is, yes i agree it is amazing, but also very inefficient. It is far more powerful then modern computers but can calculate as fast as a cheap calculator for example and then there is the point that it there was a designer for the rest of the body he was ether a jerk, lazy, or not very smart. There are multiple organs that we don't need, our reproduction and waste organs are on top of each other, etc.

          " 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

          and its people are like grasshoppers.

          He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

          and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

          Circles and spheres are very different this could be seen how you see it or it could be seen as a disk world. Also at a very similar time Greeks were fairly sure the earth was a sphere and were trying to discover how big around it was.

          Finally you do realize the bible contradicts itself, and has stories in it that were clearly taken from older religions.

          PS look up your scientific facts before using them, as to not use them wrongly and out of context.

        • 4realsies

          You CAN see the effects of gravity, or the wind blowing across a field, or diffuse light with a spectrascope, a diseases effect on a organism; your imaginary friend is only measured by the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think about it.

          calling something too complicated is a weak argument, it only concedes to your laziness- can you tell me how a internal combustion engine works? how about the calculus to get a space ship to the moon? care to replicate Galileo's experiments that proved the sun is the center of the solar system? these are all things that you can do, but it takes effort.

          this is the central problem- you dont even know what evolution is. supercomputers? a computer isnt alive. a computer doesnt make baby computers. those supposed baby computers dont have mutations. those supposed mutant baby computers dont compete for resources. maybe if you read up on the issue a bit more you would know that mainstream christianity accepts evolution too(even the pope).

          • Abla

            Funny how you make it seem like evolution is the "intellectual" option… Claiming creation is just waaaay too simple and weak to deserve a serious analysis, making it sound like if someone does not believe in evolution, then that person must be ignorant.

            Have you ever read the book The Neck of the Giraffe by Francis Hitching? Pretty interesting. In his research he mentions that he found many scientists with personal doubts and even stumbled upon the ones "who dared to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory is not in any way a genuinely scientific theory." We also have Chandra Wickramasinghe (renowned British scientist) He seems to take a similar position. "There is no evidence of any of the basic principles of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that conquered the world in 1860, and I think it was a disaster for science ever since"

            I guess their college degrees are weak too… no? Or maybe they just do not know what they are talking about either… Oh I know! They just dont know what evolution is! just like them ignorant scientists who have in one way or another come to the conclusion that "hey, if something exists, it has to have been made by someone just like your complex combustion engine or space ship was also made" Kreider, Marlin (Physiologist), Oelschlägel, Bernd (Physicist), Weinberg, Steven (Physicist), White, Robert (neurosurgeon), Barton, D. H. R. (Chemistry Professor), Baumgardner, John R. (Geophysicist), Behe, Michael J. (Biochemist), Block, David (Astronomer), Collins, Francis (Molecular Biologist), Davies, Paul (Physicist), Dembski, William A. (Mathematician), Dirac, P. (Mathematician), Dyson, Freeman (Physicist), Giertych, Maciej (Geneticist), Polkinghorne, John (Physicist), Rubbia, Carlo (Physicist), Sandage, Allan (Astronomer), Schroeder , Gerald (Nuclear Physicist), von Braun, Wernher (Physicist), Gish, Duane T. (Biochemist), Hoyle, Fred (Astrophysicist), Jastrow, Robert (Astronomer)

            Anyways, according to the intellectuals, scientific believes are based on facts, while belief in creation is based on a warm fuzzy feeling. And i will be the first one to recognize that no man has seen God. However, the theory of evolution has no advantage in this respect, it is based on events that no human being has ever witnessed or ever been able to reproduce. For example, have you or anyone ever observed BENEFICIAL mutations that produce NEW forms of life? Yet you seem very confident that new species came into existence precisely that way. Have you or anyone ever witnessed the spontaneous generation of life? Yet you insist that life originated that way. It seems to me this lack of evidence, makes YOUR belief in evolution a simple "warm fuzzy feeling" too. Look at that! A common ground huh?

            But truth of the matter is we all want facts right? Well, lets review some facts and compare now that we are at the same ground level

            1st. The Bible explicitly says that God is the source of life (Psalm 36:9). Life did not arise or can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter. This is completely in agreement with scientific laws and experimental evidence. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations of thermodynamics and kinetics, all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life is not possible. Ever since Pasteur's experiments, no one believes in older reports about spontaneous generation. In controlled experiments, spontaneous generation simply does not happen.

            2nd. Bible says that every living thing produces its own kind of offspring (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24). Show me evidence offered by paleontology, or experiments with crosses or mutations, that would be able to refute this principle. There have been findings in ancient geological strata of fossilized remains of species that are still alive, but these forms are identical to the ones today. You can find a wide variety within a certain kind of lifestyle, both in nature and in experiments with crosses, but in NO case does it go beyond the ranged limits and produce a new class.

            It seems to me that the Bible is in harmony with scientific facts… while I'm still waiting for evolution to give a satisfactory explanation.

  • l

    I remember when a member of the royal family of my country said in the news: "The speed limit on the road needs to be higher. When we drive faster, we are not that long on the road so we have less chance on a car accident."

  • bermudadude123

    yo dudes and dudets, you all just gotta chill out cause ur all gettin worked up over nothin. everyone has a right to beleive what they wanna and no one wants to be judged on what they beleive.

    • John Alex

      I'm ok with beliefs, it is ignorance I'm not a big fan of.

  • Jim

    Massive facepalm to all of you who have been posting your opinions as "fact" and proven and to everyone who continues to debate in a topic that is:

    Arguments that can't be won.

    you many think your opinion of evolution or abortion or one of the others has been proven but then so do people on the other side of the argument and that is what is so funny about comments that continue to try and convince on this topic. There are so many EPIC FAILURES in this thread I have to have coke and popcorn and continue to follow the mess.

    it is hilarious :):):):):)

    • 4realsies

      I detect a hint of "I disagree, but I cant back up my argument, so Im just going to mock the participants rather than endanger my precious beliefs". M-I-rite?

      • Jim

        whether we agree or not makes little difference.

        we know we will not convince anyone:

        A. over the internet

        B. especially in this thread.

        C. I have decided it is most fun to observe .

  • Icalasari

    The Egg one can be answered:

    Due to evolution, an animal that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg one day, with this egg hatching into a chicken. Thus, the chicken egg came first (because what else would you call an egg containing an unborn chicken?)

    Other situations:

    Biblical – Chicken

    Dictionary – Chicken

    Eggs in General – Egg

    Really, this argument just depends on what situation you are talking about. And if somebody mentions the Evolution Vs. Creationism argument invalidating this, then may as well say that Dinosaur's having existed, or the Earth's true age, or several other arguments can not be won, due to them requiring the E vs C debate to be resolved to be 100% certain

  • Adam

    Man, some things on this list are pretty dumb. How about the problem of induction? What consciousness is? What causation is? Philosophical skeptical arguments like Descartes' Dream argument or the Evil Deceiver God?

    This list was redundant. All the moral questions are just sub-problems of the question of "what is morality?" itself. And the religious and cosmological ones are just "Does God exist?" and/or perhaps "Can we know what existence is?"

  • ZeSheo

    Funny how man kind confuses religion with belief in god, and science as being absolute, science is the security blanket for man kind so to speak, its not here to establish how things work in life, but to try and help us understand. There is the religiously scientific fool and the scientifically religious fool, two blind men touching an elephant and each describing what they think it is, the religiously scientific man will say that its just a wall, after all he feels a wall-like object with his hand and then scientifically religious man will have many opinion amongst his people and will divide over it. As long as these two mind-sets remain as standard we wont get anywhere, there's so much denial over the scientific community that they look like children, god must surely be ashamed of us, a belief turned into something as low as religion(population control) and science still in pure arrogant ignorance dismissing everything they don't understand as magical nonsense. If the stars themselves aligned and said "God is here" they would say it was just gravity. In other words, they say religion explains everything they don't understand with it being God, and most "scientific minds" dismisses everything that is actual evidence as nonsense, because it has to be evidence within their own established scientific laws, a form of religion. They selfishly want to see god for themselves, if its not the God they want him to be or if they cant find "evidence" that fits their close minded logic then they deny him. Hell they gonna get a huge surprise when the world doesnt end in 2012.

    As if it isn't bad enough that we are a species with amnesia. Makes me wonder sometimes if God regrets having sparked the first raw materials to form life on this planet.

    • 4realsies

      so thats why all the religions agree? oh wait… theyre constantly fracturing and splitting due to disagreements.

      and why scientific theories arnt repeatable? oh wait… turn on your car, bam, science. get a glass of milk from the refrigerator, bam, science. turn on the tv, bam, science.

      and "they" who thinks the world is gonna end?

      220 dates for the end of the world
      http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

      • ZeSheo

        Mayans, Aztecs, Chinese, some religious parties and most scientists believe that the world is likely to end or have a catastrophic event in 2012, even tho the predicted events stated by the bible, Nostradamus, I Ching and so on have come true with alarming accuracy in the past, Including world war 2 by dates and names. If you ask me, I don't really think the world is going to end in 2012, maybe in a few more hundred years when we literally kill the planet. This subject of 2012 is mostly based on different interpretations.

        Now for your first question, in a sense yes, this is because religions that believe in God have different interpretations of the bible, the bible itself is a historic collection of documents written by men and THEIR interpretations of the events that happened. This causes many to ignore the morals and principles that God teaches us. Ironic isn't it?

        For your second question. Sorry in this one I didn't really get the meaning of this one, but I will try to reply to it. If you mean what I think, I don't see how this has anything to do with the existence of God but yea. Scientific theories are just that, theories based on how much research and information you have been able to gather, if you notice there have been a lot of theories in science, scientists used to believe fire was magic, scientists used to believe in vampires, scientists used to think the earth was flat, scientists used to think the earth was the center of our solar system, scientists used to think there were no such thing as alien life, till they found microscopic fossils from frozen rocks in space, scientists used to think there was no such thing as a bio-energetic field on the human body, now they cure deceases with it in china, scientists used to think the universe was static, I could go on forever, it seems that scientific theories are very repeatable, but this is good it is what helps us understand how the universe works, we may never learn everything, but we have to evolve somehow both morally and scientifically, as human beings its what we are.

        To me, God is someone that is with us at all times, weather you believe in him or not, my evidence of the existence of God is creation, science and conscience.

        • 4realsies

          No they dont. The mayans flat-out state the world isnt going to end, its just the end of a calendar cycle. Dont you think its funny how everyone was citing THE EXACT SAME THINGS for the world ending in 2000 and that didnt happen either?

          Read my link, thats 220 dates where end of the world predictions failed, people really do have nothing better to do.

          if you have to interpret, that means it really isnt saying what you want it to say.

          fire is magic? if you want to criticize science then at least go with with Phlogiston, but oh wait, its science that says "naw that aint right" and kept on working to figure out chemistry.

          vampires real? an invention of fiction from day one. dont you think its strange that vampires are averse to crosses? yeah, not only is it fiction, but its religious based fiction to trick rubes into thinking that these trivial IDOLS that they WORSHIP have real power.

          flat earth? nah, do a ctrl f on this page for flat earth on this page, some other guy already brought up the fact that thats a urban legend.

          what fossils from outer space?

          esotericism is bull. there no conspiracy to keep it out of western medicine, it just doesnt work. if there was the slightest inkling of anything useful in it, corporations would be launching campaigns to patent what has already existed for thousands of years (like monsanto patenting that mexican bean) or simply blatantly ripping it off.

          yes, we do have to grow morally both individually and as a society: the morals of the abrahamic faith are downright barbaric.

          • ZeSheo

            The Mayans state nothing, it is how most interpreted it as I already mentioned, we dont know exactly what they were up to. Obviously there have been failed predictions before, I can tell you right now you will win a billion dollars and it would most likely not happen, you also forgot to link to the other predictions that did come true, such as WW2’s Hitler by name and 9/11 just to name two.

            To:”If you have to interpret, that means it really isnt saying what you want it to say.”
            Thats actually incorrect, to interpret means explain the meaning of something with observation. Everybody has to interpret, including in science, its part of our humanity…

            To:fire is magic? if you want to criticize science then at least go with with Phlogiston, but oh wait, its science that says “naw that aint right” and kept on working to figure out chemistry.
            Critizise? Now whose interpreting the wrong way? If you didn’t get the entire meaning of that paragraph, science is a series of judgments, revised without ceasing. -Pierre Emile Duclaux

            To: Vampire comment.
            Obviously its fiction, for what I understand, the idea of vampires started in china, they believed they didn’t bite, but instead absorbed chi(ki energy) energy, also known as life force from humans, even tho this chi absorbing is scientifically possible, I dont know about vampires. Then around the 15th century in Romania, well Transylvania, legends of live stock being found drained of blood lead to legends of vampires, people started to fear them, so religious parties assumed that they were creatures of the night, demons and monsters, so that’s were the cross idea came from. Scientists investigated the bodies, but it sure didnt help when grave robbers stole the body the next day leading them to believe it was true(remember, 15th century). There were however, actual psychopaths that drained the blood of victims, vampirism turned into a sign of power and seduction to some so this as history may have it, encouraged these legends, you can only imagine the amount of deceases those people must have gotten off of that.

            To: Flat earth comment
            Thats actually half true, cultures like Babylon, Ancient Egypt, pre-Classical Greece, pre-Classical India and pre-17th century eastern side of China actually believed the earth was flat.

            To: what fossils from outer space?
            Nasa has found chemical signatures in falling rocks strongly associated with life, this also includes small worm-like micro fossils(1996). Images of these rocks were uploaded back to Nasa, if you want I can look them up, I actually saw it few years ago, looks cool.

            To: esotericism is bull. there no conspiracy to keep it out of western medicine, it just doesnt work.
            I hope you are not referring to the bio-energetic field, because if you are you just proved my point and you need to get up to date with research, Chi Gong associations all over the world laugh at comments like that after thousands of years of research. As evidence you can find people who have been cured of cancer with no quimio or radio therapies, in fact, everything invasive on the human body that is not natural to the body is curable, this is a known fact and it happens on a daily basis. Why is this technology rarely available in the U.S.? If you actually studied this, it would be common knowledge, this science has only recently been introduced to the U.S., it isn’t something everybody can do because it requires a lot of discipline, meditation and comprehensive understanding of the entire human body to learn to use the human brain to manipulate these frequencies. Actually on a personal note, as an apprentice in the subject I would like to one day work in this field, unfortunately given that its so new in the U.S. you would have to get diplomas after studies from schools out in China to work in the U.S., I got a friend who is a Chi Kung master, he earns 5thousand dollars a month and he closed a small cut in my arm in 20 minutes.

            Anyways more information on the subject you can find at National Qigong Association, INTERNATIONAL TAI-CHI-CHUAN & CHI-KUNG ASSOCIATION and QIGONG ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA just to mention 3, yea you can find em online with the caps. Now to actually answer to your sentence there. there wasn’t a moment were I stated there was a conspiracy to keep it out of the U.S., it is simply, to put it bluntly “too difficult” to make chi kung hospitals in the U.S., I can only imagine that, with the life dedication and discipline it would take not many would choose that career path, plus it would render most of modern medicine as we know it literally obsolete since modern medicine only treats symptoms most of the time while damaging the liver and filtering organs with time and have you ever seen those TV commercials? Relieves your headache! side effects may include nausea, diarrhea, upset stomach, dizziness, drowsiness, death, insanity, women who may be or may become pregnant should not take this product or their baby will be born defective or dead(they dont really say this but they warn you of course).

            Of course medicine does its best, their dealing with lives, you have to, but the answer is already there, these companies would just shut down or just wont be giving prescriptions you will have to take for years or the rest of your life. It is basically the same reason why while we have the resources and technology to turn humanity eco-friendly it would just be way too expensive, but we are working on it and hopefully soon it will work out.

            To: Yes, we do have to grow morally both individually and as a society.
            And despite our different opinion this is what we have most in common, which is why we have to learn more about this universe together.

  • 4realsies

    Abla> shame about the format not letting me reply directly, hope you read this.

    Yes, my position is that creationism is only taken from the standpoint of the ignorant: you challenge me to provide examples of things becoming a new "class" (the word you're looking for is species), yet you havnt looked into the matter at all yourself. ring species, banana's, nylonaise, the relation between whales and hippo's, dna differences and similarities in monkies and men, birds and dinosaurs, domesticated breeding of dogs, cats and cattle. As two groups of something, which started from the same common ancestor, but became physically seperated (so they are no longer sharing dna between the two groups), they receive different random mutations and may even but subjected to different natural selection criteria. Once they get to the point that when reintroduced, they are sterile to eachother, then you can safely say that they really are different species. The sun does exist, just because the blanket is over your face isnt compelling evidence that it isnt morning; wake up and get to work. I want you to tell me why people *think* all of these things make a pretty solid case for evolution, then tell me why theyre wrong, then maybe we can start having an interesting conversation.

    you like to throw around the " marks, but have you looked into those quotations? Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle; all they seem to have is an opinion. Theres no figures given in support of their assertions of probability and they freely concede that he has no evidence for their own life came to earth from meteor's hypothesis, if thats good enough for you, then I assert that I own the golden gate bridge and you can buy it from me for a bargain 🙂

    Lets be clear about something; evolution is how life changes once it already exists, abiogenesis deals with how life started.

    Watch this: The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

    also do a control f and take a look at all the other links Ive posted on this thread

    • Abla

      By simply repeating that something is a fact, does not make it a reality. In crucial areas where the theory of evolution can be tested, it has failed. The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary giant leaps rather than gradual change…. and dont throw your Punctuated Equilibrium theory here cuz you know THAT is precisely the opposite of what has been accepted for decades. In reality, for those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying, "Special Creation."

      Why is that? A common ancestor… cmon… how can every living thing come from a common ancestor?!! Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to PREVENT new forms from evolving. Lets look at it closer… it has been taught that, in very broad terms, fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, mammals and birds came from reptiles and mammals eventually became men. I still request proof of any this nonsense… First, how can fish become amphibians? The spine or backbone would have to had undergone major changes for the fish to become amphibious. An added a pelvis, per say… but there are no known fish fossils that show how a pelvis developed on amphibians. Additionally, amphibian evolution requires that the fins of fish become jointed limbs that have wrists and toes, along with many changes in the muscles and nerves. The gills would have to become lungs. Oh, and fish blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart… now THATS A LOT of explaining to do which is usually given by a "oh, it just happened over very long periods of time. And this is a fact because science says so even though we have no supporting evidence" … Second, from amphibian to reptile: Solve me this riddle… the mere fact of how eggs are fertilized is troublesome for scientists trying to link the two species. Why? Well, we all know that eggs in amphibians are fertilized EXTERNALLY. While eggs in reptiles are fertilized INTERNALLY. This is not too complicated if you can prove how the new and completely different sexual organs appeared, how animals developed new instincts and mating procedures…I get it! same explanation lacking evidence. Or from reptile to bird: Oops… yet another unsolved mystery… why is it that reptiles are cold blooded while birds are warm blooded? Oh, because some dinosaurs where warm blooded? I could have sworn Robert Jastrow proved that "all dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold blooded"… or is that in disagreement with science… I thought science was in agreement?? And we can go on and on with "oceans" that science has not been able to cross…like the one between animals and you. Your brain separates you from any other creature in the world… abstract thought, speech, and the ability to accumulate knowledge… all very noticeable differences I would say. What about moral and even spiritual values or love, justice, wisdom, mercy…how did all of these qualities evolve? Fill me in when science finds a satisfactory answer… But here it is in case anyone wants to know it: Génesis 1:26

      On the other hand, we can use mathematical probability to prove that the story of creation is in Genesis must have come from a source who had knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages: 1st) a beginning, 2nd) a primitive earth in darkness, wrapped in heavy gases and water, 3rd) light 4th) an expansion or atmosphere, 5th) large areas of dry land, 6th ) plants; 7th) the sun, moon and stars noticeable in the expansion, and the beginning of the seasons; 8) sea monsters (dinosaurs) and flying creatures 9) wild and domestic animals, mammals, 10) man. Science agrees that these stages presented are in this general order. How likely is it that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you chose numbers 1 thru 10 out of a box and randomly got them in consecutive order. The likelihood of doing this in the first attempt is about 1 in 3,628,800! Therefore, it is unrealistic to say that the writer simply listed by chance the correct order of events mentioned above without getting the data from some source.

      However, evolutionary theory leaves no room for the concept of a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the birth of life on Earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals… something I still want PROOF of…

      • John Alex

        ignorant people like you are the reason i no longer try to argue on here. you only see what you want to see and use half truths and lies to prove your point. Then you refuse to believe people when they point out that you don't know what you're talking about, because it doesn't fit into your blind faith in your religion.

        All i can say is look up your "facts" before you post them as true

      • 4realsies

        Thats your whole argument, that YOU dont know? Asserting that there is "no proof" aint gonna win me over when Ive been demonstrating proof up and down this thread, do a ctrl-f man, I got loads of links; read them.

        "Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to PREVENT new forms from evolving." Are you claiming mutations dont happen? hear that guys? Abla cured cancer, turned out it never existed in the first place, who knew?!?!!?

        "First, how can fish become amphibians?"

        lol, walking catfish yo
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S4TA9RfDb8&fe

        and while Im on a roll, one of my favorites, a dog never gave birth to a cat:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI&pl

        and another good one, part 6 of the made easy series; Natural Selection Made Easy
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8&fe

        oh and you're a monkey:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz52ivJgVx8&pl

        ken miller on human evolution:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&pl

        aaaaaand finally comparison between different versions of the bible and reality
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bibl

        so yeah, not only did they take a blind guess, they took a second blind guess too; pretty fruitless though, speculating instead of finding out.

        • GoKu

          Naaaa!!!! Everyone here is equally wrong and disgusting and equally worthless… like my half and half coffee additive that's gone bad… NO ONE CAN PROVE 100% THEIR OWN BELIEFS! Science has offered proof of evolution the such of which 4realsies has provided.. (1 point for science…yay!). BUT!!!! Where the hell did all come from??!! It had to have been created and this is were God is holdin' you by the nuts! (1 point for God… if there is any… so take that point away from him cuz there is no proof of his existence) By by the same token, science has not been able to create anything tangible out of nothing… in fact they have a law that says this is NOT possible..(take that original point away from science)…Crap has to have been created somehow… no one has the answer with proof, just made up ideas from people with genuine critical thinking skills but as the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out. The fact that there are flaws in both theories shows yall got a crapload of work to do… and ideas to prove….. so get to it! and find me an answer while I go back to not caring

          • ZeSheo

            That was hilarious but very wise. I have to agree.

          • 4realsies

            man, I hate discussing quantum mechanics, you know the old saying "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you dont understand quantum mechanics", yeah Im confident in alot of things, especially in how I dont know jack about quantum mechanics, but apparently there are some people who do know a lil:

            Wave Function And Wave-Particle Duality
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GTCus7KTb0

          • ZeSheo

            Sometimes I think quantum mechanics raises more questions than answers, but its a very interesting subject. However I think my I.Q. just dropped.

  • ZeSheo

    There has always been the misconception of science vs religion based on this. Hypothetically speaking, when you are questioning Christianity itself accusing of being fake, you are already off track and speaking irrelevant insulting comments when you do not understand it. If creanionism is wrong and you believe that therefor christianity must be fake then it is the same thing as acusing the Germans today of trying to take over the world. But I understand were you are coming from and there is some truth in what you say, religion is after all religion.

    But never confuse religion with faith in God, a scientist can open his mind and heart to believing in a creator, God in this case, embracing beautiful principles, but he doesn't have to abandon reason(why would he have to?), said God would have created science to begin with, which ever way people interpret it then create religions to try to spread this point of view is their problem, not yours, therefor we have no reason to conflict with each other. The fact is that facts exist on evolution, or at least so far what we know, I see no reason why people's faith in God should be as weak as to be based on us having popped on this earth, weather God created us through science or out of nowhere shouldn't really affect faith, and for those who don't have faith, as long as they are doing the right things they shouldn't be criticized as having pessimistic point views, one way or the other we try to evolve, a pretty misguided conflict over these two points of views eventually misguides them both into dismissing each other, creating ignorance when there is so much wisdom involved. Well this is how I see it anyways.

    • 4realsies

      ZeSheo > what benefit is there in having an imaginary friend though?

      and to your other post, which the format keeps me from responding to directly:

      No, just no. You say the bible predicted ww2 and 9-11? Fine, you and every other theist saw it coming and you all did nothing to prevent it, murderers. Maybe it isnt a good idea to fib about knowing the future 😉 and yes, there are 3 million mayans alive today, the vast majority will tell you straight up that its nothing but media hype.

      chemical signatures, as in the components of life, but not anything actually living? Sure, thats good evidence that there are plenty of components floating around out there, but it doesnt quite seal the deal on whether there actually is life out there (on mars, on asteroids, etc).

      cancer does go into remission, its better to be honest about when it happens, then to give credit to some random quack product they just happened to be on. you say it isnt common because its hard? doctoring is one of the best paid professions out there, if the guy can perform, consistently, he gets recognition, but as long as he is successful only with the same consistency as random chance, he will be doomed to obscurity.

      • ZeSheo

        -Its not an imaginary friend, its an entity that created the universe, all that was, is and will be through logic. But I cant tell you that's a fact, after all science doesn't have the power to prove it, don't think anybody does, cant make other people see what you see just because they feel differently, that would just be weird wouldn't it.

        -About the prediction, sorry no, I wasn't clear about that, I don't think the bible predicted that, I think it was this famous astronomer who's name escapes me. Anyways, what?

        "Fine, you and every other theist saw it coming and you all did nothing to prevent it, murderers. "

        -Do you think everybody believes the same thing and has the same opinions just because they believe in God? If you do then you have learned nothing.

        And what ever the ancient Mayans meant I doubt modern Mayans today would have a clue, but who knows maybe some do after all, I'm not Mayan.

        "chemical signatures, as in the components of life, but not anything actually living? Sure, thats good evidence that there are plenty of components floating around out there, but it doesnt quite seal the deal on whether there actually is life out there (on mars, on asteroids, etc)."

        -I know, I tend to quote a lot. At no moment in my input did I mention that just because there are components pointing to life that it means that there is life out there, I informed you of microscopic biological entities fossilized that were presumably once alive, a microscopic single cell organism.

        Random quack product?

        -I don't think you understood this part of my input. I'm talking about a career in Chi Gong. A Chi Gong healer is a doctor, due to the evidence of its superior effects on the body it was just recently accredited in the U.S., I think you can find this actually by looking up Doctor of Oriental medicine, that's how I found it back when I started my research anyways. I made about 4 pages worth of facts and research on this,if you want I can share it with you, I will actually be thankful for your time.

        "You say it isn't common because its hard?"

        -There are many types of doctors, to become a medical doctor isn't easy, but I wasn't talking about the ones you see in hospitals today. A Chi Gong doctor will require a lot more of study and research, it also requires a lot of discipline and patience that most people don't have. Hospitals today are already set on a path, the implementation of new knowledge of the human body is going to take time.

        Like I said if you want me to I can show you my notes on this subject, I'm just doing research, nothing fancy.

        • 4realsies

          That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          Ah, that I disagree with you *I* have "failed to learn"? What a delicious rationalization to how despicable your position is- that you had prior knowledge of 9-11, yet let it happen. Thats an ugly lie and you are a horrible person for stating it.

          More discipline? doctors study for 8 years of grueling work.

          • ZeSheo

            "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

            Only a fool deals in absolute.

            "Ah, that I disagree with you *I* have “failed to learn”? What a delicious rationalization to how despicable your position is- that you had prior knowledge of 9-11, yet let it happen. Thats an ugly lie and you are a horrible person for stating it."

            Maybe you don't understand the position we are in right now, I don't think you understand what you are typing because to put it bluntly, you are pulling words off your behind. When did I claim to have had knowledge of 9/11 prior to the event actually occurring? If you are not going to understand what you are reading, please read it a second time, or refrain from posting.

            "More discipline? doctors study for 8 years of grueling work."

            Yes and they have to work painful hours every day too, but this is irrelevant to what I meant, Chi Gong would involve rediscovering another part of the human body previously unknown to the western hemisphere, using abilities that the body was naturally designed to be able to do. Don't get me wrong, western doctors do the best they can, and for that I honor and applaud them, specially with all the lives they have saved with the limited knowledge the west has on medicine, medicine only works to some extent, mostly treating symptoms rather than the core of the problem. This causes curable deceases like STDs, Aids and Alzheimer to remain uncured. Chi Gong focuses in the healing and prevention of such deceases.

            Cars were once a mystery to the east just as chi is a mystery to the west, well actually, its not a mystery anymore, its a field of science. The effectiveness of both of these medical sciences are combined in the eastern hemispheres in countries where this is practiced, once the U.S. rediscovers this, with its potential I'm sure millions of lives more will be saved, but so far the only use of chi you see most in the U.S. is acupuncture.

            Bottom line, we have people who are capable of this in the U.S., I'm sure, just look at what we have accomplished so far, but it takes a life time of dedication to actually be a Chi Gong healer.

            • 4realsies

              Ok, you're saying its predicted in the bible, yet no one bothered to check till after the fact? Fine, you're lazy then, yeesh. Or the "predictions" are worthless. Its one or the other.

            • ZeSheo

              No no, not the bible, well not necessarily, the bible has only predicted a few things, most predictions have come from Nostradamus that we know of and a few other philosophers who's names escape me. I guess you got that one right tho they actually started paying attention to such predictions until after they happened.

            • Jim

              If you do some research you will find that none of the Nostradamus "predictions" were discovered until after the events occurred. it is the same with the bible code. Anyone who is reasonably good at puzzles can find that stuff in any large book.

  • hamudii85

    this is all the secret society ideas (lucifer followers), they want to make os to believe in anything but god, excuse my bad english, :).

    • 4realsies

      define god, then prove each of the qualities you assigned him 😉 and no, "because I said so" doesnt count.

  • zack

    the topic is good.. but lake of research..just speak your mind… so lame.. all have answer you know… i know..guest what, question is to be answer not to be ask.. find it.. that will make your live even better.. trust me. try to learn who is god, find the right one.. open your heart. you will know why you keep asking. adios

  • ZeSheo

    "More discipline? doctors study for 8 years of grueling work."

    Yes and they have to work painful hours every day too, but this is irrelevant to what I meant, Chi Gong would involve rediscovering another part of the human body previously unknown to the western hemisphere, using abilities that the body was naturally designed to be able to do. Don't get me wrong, western doctors do the best they can, and for that I honor and applaud them, specially with all the lives they have saved with the limited knowledge the west has on medicine, medicine only works to some extent, mostly treating symptoms rather than the core of the problem. This causes curable deceases like STDs, Aids and Alzheimer to remain uncured. Chi Gong focuses in the healing and prevention of such deceases.

    Cars were once a mystery to the east just as chi is a mystery to the west, well actually, its not a mystery anymore, its a field of science. The effectiveness of both of these medical sciences are combined in the eastern hemispheres in countries where this is practiced, once the U.S. rediscovers this, with its potential I'm sure millions of lives more will be saved, but so far the only use of chi you see most in the U.S. is acupuncture.

    Bottom line, we have people who are capable of this in the U.S., I'm sure, just look at what we have accomplished so far, but it takes a life time of dedication to actually be a Chi Gong healer.

  • GoKu

    @4realsies… Oh now that what I call a jumbo batch of BULL (with the consistency of hot tar… i might add) Although the video is interesting, if you listen closely, it only explains how EXISTING particles behave…"an electron can travel in all directions simultaneously" But where was I when the electron appeared? Fine… it also says that those "particles can appear out of the nothingness of space" I guess that is a disclaimer I can use for my next product "Due to quantum tunneling/waving/etc…, there is an extremely tiny chance that this product may suddenly disappear at any time (and reappear elsewhere). The Manufacturer will not be responsible for such mysterious disappearances" $$$ Thats a money maker right there!!!

    But on a serious note, I don't doubt that wild parties are taking place at an atomic level where electrons and strings are dancing to the macarena while engaging in devious behavior, but it sounds to me scientists don't have an explanation of how the bigger orgy got started… whatever that means….lol Like I said, its a first come first serve basis. The moment I see GOD I will believe in God ("oh but no one can see god and live"…they will say) well then prove his existence. Or, show us an atom 'appearing out of the nothingness of space'… if that's doable, then make two atoms, and then three… till you get enough to make a gun and shoot yourselves…. but that's just my humble opinion 🙂 Have a good day……………………………..I SAY GOOD DAY! lol

    • 4realsies

      Tut tut! Cluck cluck! Broo ha ha!

      Like we even have any evidence for anything to have ever been created or cease existing 😛 even with multidimensional vibrations the electron doesnt stop existing, it just stops occupying our petty little 3 dimensional home. Everything always existed, prove me wrong !!!11

      also

      http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&am

  • princessr

    In accordance to Evolution vs Creationism – they're both theories, the real fact here is no one here was around way back then so no one can be 100% sure. Science has been proven wrong so many times before. So it isn't exactly 100% accurate so we cannot be 100% sure. The bible isn't a science textbook. But I've read in the Bible that to God 1 day is like a 1000 years, so who is to say that God decided to take His time in creating the earth. Christians don't need to know what happened before Adam and Eve so why put that in the bible. For all we know God spoke one word and the big bang took place. We can't be sure as none of us were there. And I really don't care what happened in the beginning because it does not have anything to do with my ending. There are no eyewitnesses alive today so for as long as there will be life on this planet people will continue to argue about it. I am not about to waste my life focusing on something that really can't be proven accurately. My focus should be on the future and since we're not looking after this earth, there might not be one. so stop focussing on the past, get your lazy butts off your chairs and do something to help this earth now!!!!

    • 4realsies

      Welcome to the thread, heres a couple things to think about:

      Difference between the slang use of the word theory and what it means to be a "scientific" thoery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

      Sure, science gets things "wrong", but only in the context that we keep getting incrementally more right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0&fe

      Feynman- on doubt, uncertainty and religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zi699WzAL0

      "Iâ??ve read in the Bible that to God 1 day is like a 1000 years" no you didnt 😛

      "For all we know" thats the key isnt it? lets stick to what we know. the guys telling tales of the world being on a turtles back, or 6000 years old or the center of the universe arnt doing anything useful.

      "There are no eyewitnesses alive today" who needs an eye witness? your wrecked house is evidence your teenager had a party while you were out for the weekend. The high water mark on the kitchen wall is evidence there was a flood. the giant hole in the ground as evidence of a meteor. sure, its nice to catch your neighbor in the act of stealing your paper, but sometimes you have to figure it out by combining the fact the paperboy doesn't deliver any to his house, yet theyre stacked high in the recycling, then with closer inspection, that theyre addressed to you.

      not only is there evidence for evolution, but that evidence is the forefront of curing diseases: DNA

      ted talks Seth Berkley: HIV and flu — the vaccine strategy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nncPtxLCPrE&pl

      "get your lazy butts off your chairs and do something to help this earth now!!!!" something I can agree with out of this thread? impossible 😮

      • ZeSheo

        @4realsies, Try not to laugh because I know how this sounds, but stay with me here because Im trying to make a point.

        "your wrecked house is evidence your teenager had a party while you were out for the weekend. "

        -Or a burglar probably broke into your house.

        "The high water mark on the kitchen wall is evidence there was a flood."

        -Or It would have been just a leak from the ceiling next to the wall, somebody could have gotten into your house with a hose too.

        "the giant hole in the ground as evidence of a meteor"

        -It could have been drilled, or maybe a small earthquake made a hole on the ground because the structure was weak, or maybe somebody shot the floor open with a bazooka.

        "sure, its nice to catch your neighbor in the act of stealing your paper, but sometimes you have to figure it out by combining the fact the paperboy doesn’t deliver any to his house, yet theyre stacked high in the recycling, then with closer inspection, that theyre addressed to you."

        -Very very good point, and I have to agree with you on that one, but it could have been the neighbor's dog who took em and just threw em in a pile somewhere at his house and your neighbor never found out until you accused him, or maybe some other neighbor stole them from you and put them at his house to frame him.

        "not only is there evidence for evolution, but that evidence is the forefront of curing diseases: DNA"

        In Oriental medicine(Chi Gong) that is already curable in advanced stages, so is Cancer, HIV, Alzheimer and so on, but not deceases that are natural to your body, in other words inherited deceases, but maybe DNA technology could help with those, this is exciting, I hope they succeed, hopefully with no side effects after its perfected.

        Anyways back to my point, what I mean to say, there is a reason we have common sense, like you just pointed out, there are possibilities we just cant ignore, but remember, we live in a world with endless possibilities, always keep your mind open.

        Like Feynma said, he rather live in doubt and uncertainty than to believe in something that might be wrong, he rather just keep an open mind just like anybody else that believes in God and in science, without it being a religion. But then again, when are their both religions? The trust in God and the trust in science. When you start dismissing what you cant proof, just like most religious parties and most scientists do. And what if science and religion are both right? What if they are both wrong? What if they are different sides of the same coin? The answer is irrelevant, we just need to keep an open mind while focusing on bettering ourselves and our technology, evolving spiritually and mentally, and we will find out when we die. No point comparing beer and wine and saying which you like best, they both have alcohol.

        • 4realsies

          ah, but what type of damage does each of those things suffer?

          anyone can tell the difference between a sinkhole
          http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/05/31/hond

          and a meteor impact
          http://www.google.com/images?q=meteor+crater&amp;…

          and hey, maybe its the neighbors kids playing a prank on both of ya, just gotta be responsible and talk it out

          Cancer though, lets be clear about what that is, cells get mutations all the time, but every so rarely theres a special combination of mutations, where the thing eats and breeds out of control, without the body recognizing it as going haywire. what are you proposing Chi Gong does to cure cancer? kill it outright? train the body to identify the cancer as cancer, without labeling non cancer as cancer? something else? if it works, then me saying "how? show me" is perfectly reasonable.

          • ZeSheo

            Perfectly reasonable? Well even for those with little or no understanding of holistic medicine I will try to explain. When for example, a ray of radiation destroys cells in your body, sometimes even messing your DNA, it will tend to keep regenerating, but it wont regenerate right, so the chaotic cells will continue to regenerate and spread, or if you break a bone and it doesn't heal right and the same effect follows, this is cancer. In Chi Gong the call this situation a chaos because in the pranic body(aura) it looks like a very dark purple, that frequency normally isn't bad, but the aura never has an area that vibrates purple that much, not naturally anyways.

            In Chi Gong, due to the danger of the procedure only advanced chi gong masters/doctors should treat patients with cancer, this is because aura is "sticky" to put it simply, if the infected chaotic matter gets into your body, it can influence the cells in your body, but its rare to get cancer from it, often they only feel the side effects until it fades away or after a shower(water contains large amounts of pranic/chi energy) that will literally wash it away.

            The exact steps taking for this procedure sound simple, but they are not, in cases of beginners it can be dangerous, if you don't induce the right refined chi induction you could slowly kill the patient because the cancer can spread even further or they can make themselves sick as I said. Now I haven't done this procedure myself, but the way I understand it, is that the damaged cells are destroyed by causing a "chaos" in a cell's structure, this is done by using a light purple frequency that vibrates faster than other color frequencies, this must be done with the intention of destroying the cancerous cells to prevent harming other cells. Chi Gong mostly works at a cellular level, this is why it is so effective, when the cells try to regenerate again, the Chi Gong doctor will then use his patient's and him-self's cellular frequency to map the regeneration of cells in the area, and like a wound it will begin to regenerate as it normally was before. Its not always required to use cellular frequencies to map regeneration tho, only in severe cases when the area is destroyed, in less severe cases the chi and body know what it has to regenerate and how given that the corrupted cancerous cells are completely gone from the tissue.

            After the treatment, in most severe cases like Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Myeloma it could take months, this is because it will require a full holistic treatment, this means that every organ in the human body needs to be treated every day if the patient is to survive until its healed, if the Chi Gong doctor is experienced enough the patient can come just once a week, given that the patient follows instructions and takes his herbal medication. Herbal medications are always VERY important for treatments, they help stabilize the condition.

            Another thing, this process may sound painful but its not, the patient does not feel any pain, for some reason, upon chi induction patients tend to relax and not feel pain, and in many cases fall asleep. Chi induction is also done with the mind and hands, chi follows mind, whoever works in this career needs to study and train every day to prevent accidents.

            There is however another branch of Eastern Healing arts called Chromotherapy. In Chromotherapy you use chi energy through devices, it uses lights from a lamp, sounds simple but you would be surprised of how much power there really is in a single ray of light. An example, in the case of broken bones, an orange light is used while a negative pole side magnet is put in the area with most pain, and a positive pole side magnet is put on the opposite side, in the universal Ying Yang principles, this step with magnets is taken because it helps stabilize the wound both in the pranic and physical bodies(they are one but yes). Now the orange light is a chi frequency(light is chi) with regenerating properties, red light has stimulating properties(cells speed up), yellow has cleaning properties, green and purple have disinfecting properties(since purple is the thickest, it also has destructive properties if dark enough, rarely used, like in the destruction of cancerous cells), green pranic frequency is also seen most when digesting or eating food throughout the entire digestive system. This is just an example, but of course after this treatment a cast wouldn't hurt anybody eh? Patients usually heal broken bones in a week this way, assuming they don't overdo it and hurt themselves before they are healed. Either way tho, if you compare Chi Gong with Chromotherapy, its like comparing a band aid with a needle and a string, it can never be as effective as Chi Gong given that the chi energy is not manually focused on that task, but it is a very very effective treatment that can double healing time, and in some cases, its used together with Chi Gong treatments since the light from the lamp itself is a good source of chi energy.

            I hoped this info helped you understand a bit of how Chi Gong works, there's so much to learn in this subject.

          • ZeSheo2

            This is just an example, but of course after this treatment a cast wouldn't hurt anybody eh? Patients usually heal broken bones in a week this way, assuming they don't overdo it and hurt themselves before they are healed. Either way tho, if you compare Chi Gong with Chromotherapy, its like comparing a band aid with a needle and a string, it can never be as effective as Chi Gong given that the chi energy is not manually focused on that task, but it is a very very effective treatment that can double healing time, and in some cases, its used together with Chi Gong treatments since the light from the lamp itself is a good source of chi energy.

            I hoped this info helped you understand a bit of how Chi Gong works, there's so much to learn in this subject.

    • ZeSheo

      Very well said.

  • The Continuum Hypothesis!!!!!!

  • 4realsies

    LariLee> almost, except the whole concept of things having ever been "created". we dont know what happened before the big bang, saying there was nothing before then and everything was "created" is purely speculative. sure, everything exists; but provide evidence that requires them to have been "created", its a hypothesis.

    whats that you say? randomness doesnt exist in life -> road trip, we're going to vegas 😀

    Mushroom> heh, to think you got so worked up when thats actually me being fairly diplomatic. its not on me to prove your invisible friend doesnt exist, your inability to prove it does is evidence enough. You owe me a million dollars, prove me wrong; see how that works? heck, simply defining what you mean by "god" would be quite an achievement, let alone a definition of god everyone can agree on.

    now see the problem is the issues get convoluted in rebuking jibberish. some people have imaginary friends; and some people have imaginary friends that tell them that they are inherently smarter than everyone around them (narcissism, look it up). so when the people too lazy to read a book develop bs common sense conclusions in regards to specific topics, those topics become entangled with the existence of their imaginary friend, even though they have no relation outside of the context of refuting mouthbreathers. stop thinking of the light switch, gas pedal, refrigerator, computer, microwave, roads, plumbing, healthcare etc as a magical devices you are entitled to, society made those things, not your imaginary friend, maybe if you work hard enough you can become a productive part of society.

    also, perfectly balanced castle? no.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

    • Mushroom

      Worked up? Hardly. Diplomatic? We may have different opinions but we are nowhere near being enemies, believe it or not I respect you.

      "stop thinking of the light switch, gas pedal, refrigerator, computer, microwave, roads, plumbing, healthcare etc as a magical devices you are entitled to, society made those things, not your imaginary friend, maybe if you work hard enough you can become a productive part of society."

      And again you loose track on the subject, what you just said is irrelevant. Dismissing what you do not understand with "magical" thinking, you need to stop thinking of science as a religion and belief in God as a religion itself, you continue to associate God as an opposite to science, when the existence of God itself would only mean everything at one point was created by God, be it by evolution or that we pop'd from the air when Adam and Eve were alive. The fact that your entire argument in the comments on this page has been that you don't know but if science is real God must not be says how misinformed you are, remember its Creationism vs Evolution, creationism meaning we humans pop'd out of thin air when God decided to create us, not if God exists or not. And yea I know what narcissism is, I'm a psychologist.

      Now, there is not enough evidence to prove the Big Bang, but lets say the big bang was real, the begging of the entire universe, who put that there? Maybe it materialized from another dimension or entered through a microscopic wormhole, and from where? And who or what put this dimension there? And what created that dimension? There will always be the question of where it came from, and where did that come from, but the snake devouring its own tail will never get anywhere, to those who believe in God, he started everything, so stop worrying so much about the integrity of science, the existence of God would not disprove it, nor science can disprove the existence of God, I don't get why some people keep associating them as opposites.

      "Oh but you have no evidence of God, just like I don't have evidence to disprove it"

      I will go meet him later and bring you a DNA sample. Would that be enough evidence for you?

      Why believe in God then? Well for those who have faith in God is kinda common sense, all the clues I can give to you is your existence, and maybe the miracles that do happen, in the end spiritual evolution is individual, its not how you explain what you do not understand, looking at faith that way is pure ignorance, it is how you explain being, something I don't think you would understand. However the same way its not for you to try to disprove the existence of God is the same way its not up to me to lead you to God, the day you die, hopefully not soon, you will find out, or not? Not gonna try to get the last say in this. But do not insult others by associating God with some "magical" imaginary friend, you miss the entire concept of what a God is.

      • 4realsies

        holy text wall batman!

        neat passive aggressive trick there with the "we arnt enemies" bit, Im sure that works out great for you irl.

        " you need to stop thinking of science as a religion and belief in God as a religion itself" ok, lets separate them then, you have an invisible friend and you have decided which attributes you are going to assign to him on your own; now what? how is that useful? sure now you can cherry pick the qualities which have been thoroughly debunked, but that still doesnt get you to a provable claim.

        "was created by God, be it by evolution or that we popâ??d from the air when Adam and Eve were alive" evolutionary theory doesnt describe how life began, it describes how living things change, abiogenesis is the topic you are looking for there.

        "Iâ??m a psychologist" no you arnt.

        "there is not enough evidence to prove the Big Bang" is too. What you might mean to say is that YOU dont know any of the evidence for the big bang. its 2010, put the words into google and read.

        "who put that there?" what evidence do you have which indicates that anything was put anywhere by a "who" for any purpose? because it flatters you to think that your imaginary friend has control over everything and everything is especially here for you? please.

        science doesnt disprove the assertion of your imaginary friend, but it does disprove alot of the claims made pertaining to your imaginary friend.

        sure, I miss the concept, all you've given me is

        *I exist, therefore god is real

        *its not my job to explain my position

        *you'll know when youre dead

        *you're mean/stupid

        let me try that with the "you owe me money" tangent you skipped over earlier

        *I exist, therefore you owe me money

        *its not my job to explain why you owe me money

        *you'll probably figure it out when youre dead, maybe, I dunno

        *why are you being so mean? dont you know I have starving children to feed, pay up! you miss the entire concept of what owing me money is.

        • Mushroom

          "holy text wall batman!"

          This by far is the best thing I have read anybody say in this discussion since it began.

          "ok, lets separate them then, you have an invisible friend and you have decided which attributes you are going to assign to him on your own; now what? how is that useful? sure now you can cherry pick the qualities which have been thoroughly debunked, but that still doesnt get you to a provable claim."

          -Again you miss the entire point, you have no evidence to "debunk" anything related to the existence of God, I am yet to see you show anything. What do you mean by "provable claims"? That depends on what you are calling evidence.

          "“was created by God, be it by evolution or that we popâ??d from the air when Adam and Eve were alive” evolutionary theory doesnt describe how life began, it describes how living things change, abiogenesis is the topic you are looking for there."

          Exactly.

          "“Iâ??m a psychologist” no you arnt."

          -Its a rewarding job, you should go see one, no I'm joking, but yes it is my profession.

          "What you might mean to say is that YOU dont know any of the evidence for the big bang. its 2010, put the words into google and read."

          -Trust me, there isn't, its still a theory, it is a possibility, somebody claims it as an official scientific fact does not make it a fact, however I'm not dismissing the possibility that the universe may have started at the big bang.

          "“who put that there?” what evidence do you have which indicates that anything was put anywhere by a “who” for any purpose? because it flatters you to think that your imaginary friend has control over everything and everything is especially here for you? please."

          -You enjoy putting words on people's mouths, your view on Christianity is quite ignorant really. Thats just.. wordplay.

          "science doesnt disprove the assertion of your imaginary friend, but it does disprove alot of the claims made pertaining to your imaginary friend.:

          -Its odd how you dislike the idea of a God existing, I can tell by the way you have dedicated a large amount of time to aggravate people who believe in God, could be arrogance, maybe anxiety of power? I cant say really, its easy to understand what you say, you type with clarity but it is really hard to read the message you are trying to send, because all I perceive is denial. You speak of proof yet to show no evidence to disprove these claims you speak of, which by the way you have not mentioned.

          "sure, I miss the concept, all you’ve given me is…"

          -Let me stop you there, notice that we have been going in circles in this short amount of time, you do not understand the concept of a God, I will make this simple, I see God every time life sparks and child is born as well as I'm aware that it is a biological process. Now, I am a christian, it means I love God, but I am aware that my feet are on the ground, maybe it wouldn't hurt you to look up instead that at your feet, maybe then you could become a productive part of society yourself. Let me explain, not sure if you have heard of this story.

          -A man who had great fate in God got lost at sea, with no hope of being saved, no contact or way to scream for help, so he prays to God to save him. A boat passes by, get in, I will save you said the man in the boat, but the man in distress said no, God will save me, so the man in the boat leaves. Later a helicopter hovers above, get in said the man in the helicopter, but again the man in distress refuses, claiming God would save him, so the helicopter leaves. The boat is sinking and its getting dark, a cruise passes by, but again the man refuses stating that God would save him, the cruise leaves and eventually the man in distress dies. He asks God, father why did you not save me when I needed you? I sent you a boat, a helicopter and a cruise and yet you refused to be saved…

          -Anyways… I'm fairly sure that deep down all human essence is aware of the existence of a creator, even you, I don't have to babysit every fellow human being or preaching the existence of God, as long as you don't justify injustice based on your little theory of an imaginary friend, I really don't care at that point, however like its been said, you need to demonstrate more maturity and understanding in such deep subjects.

          On a side note.

          "let me try that with the “you owe me money” tangent you skipped over earlier"

          -I don't see how that is relevant, but rest assured if I owed you a million dollars you would probably have to catch me first.

        • NotoriousBigBrain

          A little rough around the edges, but well stated 4realsies. These religious folks have a lot of learning to do, especially when it comes to Science.

          • TheTruthSPeaks

            @NotoriousBigBrain, You have a lot of learning to do about science and about what religion is, don't encourage ignorance.

  • The egg

    It was the egg because, let's say there was a chicken before the very last evolution the species would ever make, once it had an egg, that egg would evolve ever so slightly into the permanent chicken that we see today.

  • bassbait

    The problem with these idiots on the internet is they think they can discredit God because they think God is one dimensional. Like saying "If a retard is born, God wanted it, and so he must not like that creature". That's soooo idiotic. They think God thinks like a regular person, and so thus, he has a one track mind of "like" and "dislike". No. That's nowhere near a good way to perceive God. For example, the "Free Will" Vs. "Destiny" argument is seemingly black and white, like our 2D perception deceives us to believe. It may not be that a God has predetermined our paths at all. Maybe he didn't give us our separate paths, but he gave us one universal path to follow, and this time on the Earth is part of the path. Sure, Dahmer was evil, but he wasn't predetermined evil in the sense that God wanted him to be. God wanted him not to be evil, but gave him the freedom (Free Will) to do so. That's the ultimate idea, free agency. If God is so special, we probably don't deserve to be with him, and it would seem very apparent that if he exists, then "free will" is a gift we have, and if we abuse it by becoming serial killers, then that's our faults.

    • ZeSheo

      Very open minded observation. This is a problem with people that don't believe in God, they see the picture but they don't see the colors, then when they think they can see the colors they aren't even looking at the big picture.

  • asdasfase

    These are not "arguments that can't be won" these are just popular debates that wont ever stop. It wont still mean that both are right or wrong.

  • x

    pretty obvious this was put together by a girl, a democrat, or a girl democrat

    #2 = gun control?!?

    if that doesn't screeeeeeeeem political bias, what does

  • Jim

    getting close to two years on this thread now and people are still pretending there is not two sides to each debate…..It is amazing how many here really think they have "proven" something or presented a valid argument instead of an amusing rant.

    this has been fun

  • Trent

    I guess we can scratch the chicken or the egg off the list.

  • Silly list. On #1 Evolution vs Creation. Do your homework. The term is Theologian not Theologists.

  • Andy

    In response to the "God debate", no one can 100%, definitely say God does/does not exist. For example: In math (I know this isn't math, bear with me), when doing proofs, to prove something as wrong you have to provide a counter-example. There is no way to disprove a God; who's to say that this isn't all a part of God's plan? On the other end of the spectrum, you can't really fully prove a God either. But that's why it's called a FAITH. You have a trust/belief that something is true.

    I have a similar response to Evolution vs. Creationism. (Yes, we've proved that evolution/natural selection is true, I'm treating this as more of an abiogenesis vs. creationism). Unless you were alive and witnessed the very first cell of life being "born", whether by creation, abiogenesis, or whatever else, we may never know the right answer. Just because we can produce results in a lab, doesn't show that that's exactly HOW it happened, it just shows that's a possible way it COULD happen. (showing that it couldn't be used as a counter-example).

    • 4realsies

      You can however say that the evidence for god is insufficient. Just like we shouldnt go to war everytime we are unable to prove that some random country doesnt have wmd's they intend to use against us (where as, we should only go to war when we have evidence they DO, remember "slam dunk" Im still bitter about that).

      Witnesses are an incredibly ineffective source of proof. We dont need someone to watch every tree fall in the woods to know that tree's fall in the woods, or even have ever seen a tree fall to know trees fall, for that matter. Nor do we need to identify every potential way a tree may fall in order to safely conclude that a log on the ground was once an upright tree. Building life all over again out of whole cloth just to sate some peoples childishness doesnt sound like a very effective use of time.

  • Wes

    Wow, I can prove the right answer to every one of these…

  • AJ

    Abortion-

    Actually there's no debate to it or arguments to it, because you know…death by mutilation, asphyxiation, or dilation and cutterage tends to be murder . However to my disappointment and disgust, people have actually found means to make it a debate. I'm sure in the 1940s there were still arguments if whether or not the routines in camp Auschwitz were humane or not. So with that in mind I shouldn't be surprised why people think there's a debate to whether or not abortion is in anyway decent, humane, legitimate, and all that other crap.

    But the most vomit inducing part is when people attempt to argue for some idiotic legitimacy in abortion. My favorite is that moronic "Abortion saves lives" garbage. Ha Ha, so in other words killing children en mass might randomly stop them from becoming social undesirables in the future *shakes head*. The irony in that is that the people who say garbage like this have themselves proven their own social undesirability amongst the human race.

    Seeing society's ridiculousness on the matter would be funny….if it wasn't so tragic. Kind of like the tragedy of not even noticing how 95% of abortion is caused by people who just simply don't want their baby. Yeah, really guys, most abortions don't happen from the incest cases of Sisters who've just banged their Brothers! Most of these children getting diced up inside the womb actually come from two horny retards who didn't want to use contraception!

    A few million in the holocaust. Nearly 1 Billion in abortion. The human race continues to surpass every boundary of audacity.

    • 4realsies

      heres the thing about contraception, it isnt 100% effective, 99.9% means youre still looking at getting a kid once every thousand days.

      now I dont suppose it ever occurred to you that every month a woman flushes an egg? whats the difference between that and one that been fertilized? You're just being petty to get on a moral high horse. hows it gonna suffer without a central nervous system?

      dont want an abortion? dont have one. the legal precedents are sound, late term abortions are still banned, except in rare circumstances- if you were right, you wouldnt have to muddy the waters on the details to make a point.

  • Forge

    Nice list. The descriptions of almost every debate listed reflect fundamental misunderstandings as well as blatant biases on the part of the author. But that's how it goes. *shrug*

  • Mr. I.C.U.P

    You want proof of God? Don't go too far… look within yourself.

    If God does not exist, why do we know that rape, child sexual abuse, torture, murder are just wrong? how did they came into existence if we came from animals who can't even ponder upon these concepts?

    Don't misunderstand the point, because many will say that what we call morals are the result of evolutionary behavior that over time was seen as beneficial to society. However, roads are beneficial to society and if the governor decides not to have more roads for easier travel, we do not accuse him of a crime, yeah it could be considered unfair but you would deal with it… But if the Governor poisoned your mom, its not only NOT beneficial, but deep feelings, emotions (NOT INSTINCTS LIKE ANIMALS), are stirred… MORALS. How did we get them?

    God is considered the "highest" good. The peak and basis of moral values. So if there is no God, then there is no ABSOLUTE standard to judge something as right or wrong, as good or evil. In this scenario, "morals" would be spin-offs of social-biological evolution. This does not answer the fact that even atheists FEEL certain things as being RIGHT or WRONG…

    Now, i am not saying that it's NECESSARY to believe in God in order to be good, or live a moral life. The argument is that if God does not exist, there is NO absolute GOOD or BAD cuz He is the basis for all good. If you had a child and he was sexually abused, or tortured… is this simply socially inconvenient as taught by evolution? After all, that child is only a byproduct of nature according to atheists… or do humans have innate MORAL WORTH and therefore child abuse and torture is ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

    In the absence of God, MORALITY, the feeling that's created in you while you picture your son being tortured or raped is just a human illusion… it's like saying that there is no objective significance to that act because since there is no God, it can not be neither good or evil.

    Atheists can argue all day long that these MORALS are a simple pattern of social behavior in which God is obviously NOT necessary. However, even they know that the above scenarios are either ABSOLUTELY good or evil; just like many other actions are UNCONDITIONALLY obligatory while others are UNCONDITIONALLY not-permitted.

    • John Alex

      The problem with that is you are working under the impression that there is absolute good and evil and absolute right and and wrong, which I'm sorry to say there aren't. All morals are relative to society weather or not you want to believe that. At different points in history all of you absolute examples of wrong have been normal things that are nether good or evil or even possibly good.

      Example 1: War can be for the good, but really war boils down to murder, but is is ok because it is war.

      Example 2: The inquisition was torture for "Good" if you ask the people of the time.

      Example 3: At one point it was normal for girls to be married off at 10-12 years old and were expected to have children about the same time

      Example 4: In some extreme Islamic groups the girl s blamed if she gets raped.

      Also Animals do have emotions to. Their emotions are generally simpler do to smaller brains but they still have emotions we just evolved larger brains there for more complex emotions.

    • 4realsies

      god is not considered the highest good. his teachings are the complete opposite of moral: directives for human sacrifice, to rape and pillage, kill anyone not like you: read the bible, its all there. basing your moral framework on "or else what" is petty and childish. dont you value not causing harm to other people?

      is the only thing keeping you from raping indiscriminately the fear of YOU suffering consequences either from society or your imaginary friend? if thats whats really in your heart, then you arnt moral, you're just a rapist too cowardly to take action.

      • Gibasnish

        Boy are you confused and misinformed, you sound like a catholic, all christian religions are different views of God, it is their and your ignorance that spreads such views.

        People blame bad things on God but they sure don't thank good things to him, you are only alive so you can evolve, live, suffer, learn from your mistakes and don't grow up to be ignorant and close minded by what society feeds you, examples are believing God does this to you or that homosexuality is normal. Saving you the hassle of wiping your own butt would defeat the purpose of having been created, God does not take 99 cents he takes 100 for a dollar, so stop complaining about life and live it, earn your space, I don't mean that at you directly, I mean this generally. What ever you have to feel of going to hell is the person's fault, the bible doesn't teach that God punishes people, it teaches us that there are certain universal laws of balance that have been set from the moment of existence in this place we call the universe that all living things with a soul must follow, this is why we feel guilt and happiness from young without being taught, depending on the gravity of the sin you go to hell, if not you go to where you must go.

        • 4realsies

          exactly, universal laws. like after you a rape a girl, you owe her family X amount of silver and you have to marry her. the complete opposite of moral. feel that? its called shame, your religion is embarrassing you. If you really believe your emotions are instructions from your imaginary friend, then you must realize that religion is running counter to his will.

          • Gibasnish

            What era are you talking about? You are speaking of human legal laws,and not even from this century, there is a difference between universal law/balance and the laws some toilet $#itter makes in his country, its as big as a difference between law and justice in any country. And once again, Im very sure somebody already mentioned this, there is a huge difference between religion and faith, your atheist comments are very much blown out of the water, but your ego will tell you otherwise.

      • John Alex

        Exactly

  • 4realsies

    Gibasnish> google it. bible says if you rape a girl, you owe her father a set amount of silver and you have to marry her. I dont know what context you are claiming this is right in, but youve failed to make your case. or are you saying that just because it wasnt against the law in the past, its always been ok in God's eyes… and since thats all that matters, any day now all the politicians are gonna wake up and repeal all of the anti rape laws, allowing you to bask in the glorious world God intended: where a man can rape as many women as he can afford… your implications betray you, you're an idiot.

    What do you mean by a difference between religion and faith, believing in things for no reason is stupid and believing in stupid things for no reason is exponentially more stupid.

    • Gibasnish

      Now he resorts to insults, leave it to kids online to loose their cool in arguments, you are just one of many ignorants that live in this planet still living in caves, figure of speech. Must I say this again to make you see the big picture? The bible isn't a rule book its a story book intended to make you think, which apparently is not one of your skills. Let me dumb it down for you.

      If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. — Deuteronomy 22:23-24

      But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. … For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. — Deuteronomy 22:25-27

      If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. — Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – if they screw and gets her pregnant.

      Not only were you completely wrong, failing to understand this has nothing to do with the law of God, but you didn't even get the right paragraph, Id recommend you read the bible again while acknowledge that the whole point of the bible is to learn from the stories, some were right, some were wrong doings, but the point is that you think, THINK. Why do you think Jesus spoke in parables?

      • 4realsies

        "The bible isn’t a rule book"

        yes it is, some rules are explicit, some are implicit.

        instead of flippantly asking me why something is how it is, why dont you look into the long list of revisions the "bible" has acquired: its just a pile of random stories, made up, plagiarized and mutilated to serve political ends. start by finding out what "bibles" the king james version is cobbled together from, bonus points if you tell me what happened to the authors.

        • Gibasnish

          Incorrect, its not, its a story book based on historical events and other stories, maybe you are talking about the 10 commandments, which are not absolute and yet they are, you will learn in life that everything is not black and white. It doesn't matter what your government uses it for, it does not affect the meaning of those stories, but I suppose some people don't understand these things, you see a painting yet you don't see the colors so to speak.

      • 4realsies

        I hate this old stale argument, heres the ugly bits you side stepped when quoting deut

        http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/sex_list

        • LariLee

          Oooh! Devil's advocate time! God, or our "imaginary friend," gave only ten laws. The rest were made by the priests and do reflect the social norms of time. Women had value only when breeding the next generation. Virginity was so important because it was the only way a man could be sure she'd be bearing him his children and not another man's. After the consummation, she'd be ensconced in his household where his family would be watching her. Basically, daughters were a drain on the family. They couldn't work like a son could and the only money they brought in was the bride price.

          Nowadays it's very different. Laws change over time as community attitudes change. To give a recent example, the Jim Crow laws of the old South were considered perfectly fine and quite necessary at the time they were implemented. Now they are unconstitutional and make people wince at the thought they were ever law in the first place.

        • Gibasnish

          I cant believe how people can turn a beautiful faith based on God into this, back then and today a market, very messed up isn't it.

  • richard

    where do we go when we die?

    • Dentist Hump

      Depends on the person, but you still have free will after you die and ofcourse some limitations, you will only be able to go so high so to speak.

  • charles

    there can be no evidence for against god because the notion is nonsense.it says nothing that can be tested.

  • nick miner

    Evolution is a proven fact so no argument there.
    The egg came millions of years before the chicken i.e. dinosaurs.
    Euthanasia is the obvious morally right thing to allow.
    Free will is BS.

    • LariLee

      Actually, Nick, the question about evolution vs creationalism makes it into an either/or. Either man was created in God’s image or went to the process of evolution. Mankind’s evolution is not proven. There is the infamous “missing link” that would clench evolution totally. And except for man supposedly being from apes, not that many people have a problem with evolution.

      The chicken and the egg is mostly tongue in cheek.

      I’d love to hear your justification for euthanasia. Hitler had a great one: it would make a stronger Germany if all the mentally, emotionally and physically handicapped people murdered. It saved resources for those who could give more back to their country. I mean, who would decide who gets euthanized? A person who is suffering from depression after getting stood up at the alter? An elderly man who is not ambulatory, but can’t live alone. If he goes into a nursing home, he’ll be unable to allow his heirs to inherit his home. Shouldn’t he die if he wants to, even if there is little physically wrong, so his family can get more money? Would the family maybe start pressuring him? I’m not sure touting euthanasia as moral is quite right.

      And if Free Will is BS, then I don’t have to apologize for anything I said because I was forced to do it with no choice..

      • 4realsies

        “Mankind’s evolution is not proven.” Is too, we’ve found hundreds of missing links. We have the dna too. Ask yourself, “why do people laugh at creationists”? then ask google.

        “euthanasia” You’re going to die some day. When you get to the point you are too frail to walk, talk or even form coherant thoughts, with nothing to look forward too but being tied down in a bed staring at the ceiling, with a machine keeping you alive so you can keep eating through a tube and crapping yourself at the cost of dozens of thousands of dollars a year for your family to pay: you’re going to wish you had the option to bow out gracefully, with dignity on your own terms. When people are talking about euthanasia, thats the cold reality theyre speaking of. Not angsty teens, not genocidal race supremacists; just honest, humble people who know what life has in store for them. People dont like to talk about it and I cant blame them. Its ugly, youre going to die someday and thats the end: make the most of it.

  • Gibasnish

    I agree with you LariLee, tho society seems to think that if something is a miracle from God it is therefor unexplainable, which would be illogical for the creator of the universe, everything has a logical explanation, weather its rejected and ignored by whatever scientific community or not, like the cure for cancer scientifically proven to work from the cannabis sativa’s hemp oil THC content or Chi Gong healing which is the cure for every decease used by most of China, yet you don’t see it being used in the west due to denial influenced through media and/or for non-profit reasons.

    Anyways when you think about it from a logical point of view you can see, religion’s ignorance in America given that although some people do believe in God most of them have the intention of winning heaven through donating to the Christian Church so the Pope can buy his cars, one of the biggest corrupt businesses in America and the most un-christian display of ignorance and disregard for the actual teachings of God which is to THINK for yourself, hence why Jesus spoke in parables. Steven Hawkings is a brilliant man, but he says God doesn’t exist because gravity exists therefor creation can happen independently from divine intervention, yet he ignores the recent discovery that gravity is a law within another law, the force we call gravity is simply a byproduct of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder and we constantly tend to correct ourselves in science every few years, which is good. So are we all supposed to believe what he says is a fact just because hes a scientist that pops in the media? You can then overcome the mainstream media idea of science vs religion and separate religion from the existence of God, because it seems more logical to me that if God does exist he would work within his own laws to preserve the universal balance, through the science he created, so you can say evolution was a product of God’s creation. Think of it as having a bunch of lego pieces and shaking the box of legos until your lego starwars ship is built and doing this for trillions of years, that will just vaporize the pieces.

    Atleast this is my point of view, I believe in God but I don’t agree with the ignorance that there is in today’s Church, their not evolving spiritually nor mentally as human beings. In reality both the scientific community and the “religious” community are lacking some wisdom.

    • 4realsies

      “Think of {evolution} as having a bunch of lego pieces and shaking the box of legos until your lego starwars ship is built and doing this for trillions of years, that will just vaporize the pieces.”

      Could it be that no one takes your arguments seriously because you dont even have a coherent idea of what youre trying to argue against? Evolution isn’t trying to build a spaceship, or a man, or anything in particular.

      Do living things pass on their traits to their children? Yes.
      Do mutations happen? Yes.
      Are these mutations sometimes beneficial? Yes.

      Thats evolution: populations of things that are already alive change over time.

      • Gibasnish

        Your statement made no sense. Clearly I was not referring to evolution in that sentence that you modified, I was referring to creation.

        • 4realsies

          Nope, you’re talking about space ships, implying complexity too overwhelming to just spring into existence. Life as it is today didnt just spring into existence, do a ctrl f for abiogenesis and/or google it. Its all chemistry.

          • Gibasnish

            Surely you can understand such a basic concept, creation applies to the entire universe, everything that was, is and will be, not talking about creationism or abiogenesis. You seem to be on a different page, you keep bringing up evolution and surely you are not just responding to my post to troll. Lets see if this can make you understand, the universe as you see it is a chaotic environment with endless cosmic events, however that very same chaos is part of a delicate balance that causes enough harmony to allow life to spawn from natural chemicals when the right conditions are met and allows that life to survive, we have Jupiter that protects us from large meteors for example, but just the conditions and natural chemicals don’t spark creation, it wont make a single cell organism no matter how millions of years pass, you can try to recreate the same conditions and study it and it will never happen, hence shaking the box of legos.

  • 4realsies

    Let me see if I follow you, you say you’re not talking about abiogenesis, then you say you’re talking about whether “conditions and natural chemicals” spark creation? that is what abiogenesis is.

    an old favorite, The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

    yeah, jupiter is pretty sweet, if we didnt have it we might not be here. jupiter is only evidence of jupiter though.

    • Gibasnish

      Yes, however I was referring to the entire universe.

      • 4realsies

        Righto, stephen hawking only said that the universe doesnt need a creator. Are you going to look at how he came to that conclusion or just dismiss it out of hand?

        • Gibasnish

          He already explained himself, however it was an illogical statement, at least the way he presented it did not put into consideration certain laws such as the origin of gravity like I said above. You already know I explained this, what are you doing?

          • Mercury

            @Gibasnish: It doesn’t matter if you are right no matter how much logic you put into it, 4realises has been trolling this topic before most of us got here and he wont give up whether he knows it or not and most likely he will turn everything he disagrees with into an aggravated argument based on a text book and videos he looks up on youtube. Oh, also if you do mention this to him, he will try to make some funny remark to attempt to show that hes not aggravating or act as if hes speaking the deep facts out of human theories, he wants to be right like most people, because being wrong would mean tearing a sun into their world of illusions away from the mainstream mentality, so he nitpicks from posts for things to defend his point of view against, which isn’t really a crime until you troll; this is the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

  • 4realsies

    “yet he ignores the recent discovery that gravity is a law within another law, the force we call gravity is simply a byproduct of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder”

    this one? you ramble so much its really hard to follow. At least tell me which other law you are talking about here, maybe even why you think this is at odds with hawkins assertion that the existence of gravity doesnt require a creator? not giving me alot to go on here guy…

    Mercury> tear a sun away 🙂 reality is far more interesting that these bronze age day dreams.

    • Gibasnish

      @Mercury: I understand were your coming from but what you just said is even more aggravating.

      @4realises: “Gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.” Here is an example, bubbles are usually round even if its not a perfect circle and Saturn’s rings go in a circular-ish shape around of the planet, not sure if Im being clear enough its alot to absorb, I find that metaphysics(scientific branch of philosophy) helps understand aswell.

      • 4realsies

        I coulda sworn you had a link posted before I left for the weekend, it was a fancy looking pdf sort of thing, but I didnt have a change to read it: any chance you can throw it my way again?

  • Mack

    When will you clowns learn the difference between then and than; their, there and they’re? What turd bowl did you get your education from??

    • LariLee

      Quite possibly the same one where you learned your manners, Mack.

  • P Smith

    Whoever “wrote” this list has a grade 5 education. The only way in which one can say these “debates can’t be won” is if one of those debating sticks his fingers in his ears and says “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

    Evolution is proven.

    Euthanasia is NEVER forced on unwilling people, it’s strictly voluntary.

    When innocent people can be brought back from the dead (e.g. Cameron Todd Willingham), THEN the “death penalty” will have merit. Until then, it’s sociopaths taking revenge.

    The egg is a single celled organism, around since the first single celled creatures evolved more than three billion years ago. Cell division was how life reproduced then, and it’s how eggs turn into chickens, lizards and babies today. It’s still the same process.

    There is no “god” for the same reason that _you_ are considered innocent until proven guilty: all claims are false until proven true. Until any of the thousands of claimed “gods” is demonstrated to exist, they don’t exist.

    And so one. Only the uneducated, the wilfully ignorant and the religiously brainwashed say otherwise.

  • Wierdbeard65

    The Chicken and the Egg one is a no brainer, I’m afraid.

    The Egg came first. Simple.

    Why?

    Well, if you think about it, the only thing a chicken can hatch from, is a chicken egg.

    BUT

    The first chicken egg was laid by something that was very nearly, but not quire, a chicken. The genetic mutation of this “nearly chicken’s egg” turned it into a chicken.

    So, the egg MUST have been there first.

  • Jim McBride

    and what makes someone look really intelligent is going on and on in an internet debate over arguments that can’t be won when everyone knows you are only going to convince yourself. Arguments that can’t be won are classified as such because there is no clear cut winning side. YOU may be convinced you are correct but those on the the other side of the argument are just as sure of the opposite answer.

    There is no right answer and some arguments have been being carried on for as long as there has been a language to fight over them with

    • 4realsies

      nonsense, children believe in faerie tales, discarding them is an important part of becoming an adult. boisterous headlines arnt facts, theyre just bait to ensnare the bored, gullible sods who were failed by public education.

  • ohlord

    @ state policy based questions like abortion:

    most civilized countries have answered those questions, and the vast majority of those states have answered all those questions the same way, with some mild deviation.

    It seems like some of the so called “fundamental ethical/moral arguments” were just United States-centric and have ceased to be huge issues or never were, for large parts of the world.

  • Xavierserranoa

    I agree with all Of them but the one about the chicken or egg. It’s not so hard to brake aPart just keep in mind that we are talking about what came forts the chicken or the chickens egg( meaning a chicken layed it not an animal evolving into a chicken. When it come tO evolution an animal most have laid it’s egg with a chicken fully evolved in it( probably a chicken like bird)that egg is not a chicken’s egg so wat came first was the chicken that later laid chicken eggs. Now if you’re religious god created animals in pairs so they could mate and lay eggs or give birth to live animals so then again what came first was the chicken without chicken there is no egg

  • Jewpower

    Anyone arguing on a forum specifically for arguments that cannot be won does not need access to the internet… or to food.

  • Jim

    this is hilarious – this thread was started in 2008 and two and a half years later there are people who are still trying to convince others over the ****ing internet.

    make some popcorn and get a coke or a beer and keep watching.

    nobody can be argued or debated into your way of thinking on any of these subject in real life so what could ever make any one think they could talk someone out of a life long belief with a written paragraph of nonsense in a joke thread:lol:

    this is a humour website – everyone is aware of that aren’t they?

  • Hakeem

    folks,

    no where in Quran says the earth is flat.

    Infact there are many verses that support modern day science, e.g. the concept of birth & embryology, the creation of the universe with a huge explosion (big bang theory), the “reason” of the birth of sex gender is from the man (XY chromosomes) etc

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_and_science

  • This is a bad list, you can win arguments about all these things, the difference being that the wrong side is stubborn and doesn’t admit evidence.

    • ed

      That’s not true. For example, if you have an argument with quality (Evelution) vs quantity (Creation), you find yourself in another argument; Qualtiy v.s Quantity. Even if you win that, one way or another, what if you have to pick quality of 8/10 with quantity of 10,000,000,000 vs quality of 9/10 and quantity of 50. Does that still mean the qualtity wins? You can’t say, becaus that’s apples and orenges.

  • j

    Whoever wrote this did a pretty poor job. These may in fact be the top 10 arguments that cant be won, but the author does a very poor job of framing the debate. I don’t think he understands what most of those debates are about.

  • And with J’s final comment above I am closing comments on this list. Strange that a list titled Arguments that Can’t be Won is the most debated Top 10 list on the site. 😉