frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Best Agree Content

  • The Earth is flat and stationary

    every celestial body ever discovered is a sphere, that for me is the single biggest piece of evidence. Also if the earth is flat please explain that north and southern hemispheres having opposite seasons.
    Happily. Celestial bodies are not necessarily spheres. The evidence for this claim is only put forth from the same people that put forth pictures of a spherical earth.  


    Seasons. The sun goes on a circuit around the north pole. On our summer, the circuit is tighter around the pole. In our winter, it goes around a bigger circuit, giving the southern hemisphere their summer. It makes more sense on the proposed flat earth model than it does the spherical model and this is proved by looking at the sun analemma.


    SilverishGoldNova
  • should vaccines be given to children

    I am very curious to see what people say about this.
    Max_Air29Erfisflat
  • The Earth is flat and stationary

    ...and this?



    Or this;



    Or this?

     

    Hank
  • Do you believe in God? Religion vs Science

    There is no proof for a God. I believe in science rather than an imaginary being.

    There is plenty of proofs of god/gods on eBay.

    You "believe" in science?? Sounds like a religious comment to me, that's what atheists tell me anyways.

    I believe in an "Uncreated Creator God" because of science. Not the science fiction type of science, but the type that observes the world around us, and gives us an honest, unbiased description of what they see. The ones that provide "evidence with substance" and not the science that requires us to "believe" in them, or to put our faith in them/science, .. you know, the ones that tell us: to just "trust us, theses pictures are of Mars, taken by our Mars Rover that's there, .. really! See the red tint? This proves it's Mars. The pictures of the same scenery without the red-tint is here on earth."
    Erfisflat
  • Do you believe in God? Religion vs Science

    Fr3ak said:
    There is no evidence or proof of the existence of any sort of god. Because of this, I believe, as a rational person, that there is no god, however I am open to the existence of one if you can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a chance one exists. However, the only arguments I have had are very easily disproven and do not even come close to beggining to prove the existence of a god. The fact of the matter is that we have evidence to suggest that something such as the theory of the big bang is what created the universe. By observing our universe, the evidence leads to a logical conclusion. We cannot say for certain, it is just a theory, however there is more evidence to support whereas the no evidence to support the existence of a god.

    Feel free to challenge me to this and attempt to prove me wrong and try to prove god exists. Who knows, maybe you will come up with something original.
    @Fr3ak said: The fact of the matter is that we have evidence to suggest that something such as the theory of the big bang is what created the universe. By observing our universe, the evidence leads to a logical conclusion.

    Which universe are we talking about, the one created by Gene Roddenberry, or L. Ron Hubbard, George Lucas, or NASA? They all vary!?
    Erfisflat
  • Do you believe in God? Religion vs Science

    Vaulk said:
    @Logic,

    To answer your question:
    Logic said:
    Why would a theist make something that isn't compatible with his religion? 
    Answer: Science is the study of the natural world...plain and simple.  The ideology behind a supremely powerful being who can defy all the laws of the natural world is by definition "Supernatural" and therefor stands distinctly separated from Science and beyond Scientific understanding.  So essentially, whoever created the Scientific Method (Whoever you believe made the most contributions to its establishment) didn't create a Religious incompatibility but merely made it so that one could not be used in conjunction with the other as they are in different realms.

    And secondly:

    Logic said:
    And god doesn't have to be in the realm of the super natural alone, Why not the realm of the un seen? 
    Answer: I've found no reference to the "Realm of the unseen" that isn't a supernatural reference.  Granted you cannot see gravity but that doesn't make it supernatural, this is a faulty comparison because Gravity, while it cannot be observed directly (Similar to air), the effect of Gravity can be observed and experienced.  You can test gravity, you can formulate hypotheses and then experiment to verify its existential nature. 

    In this, I'm afraid that we may have to agree to disagree, God or "A God" is a supernatural being by definition no matter how hard anyone wants it to be otherwise.  I don't believe anyone from the Scientific Community would disagree either.  Not to say that Science cannot be applied to what's in front of us that may be the result of something Supernatural...I think this is where Science and Religion meet very well. 

    And I agree that no twisting of words is required to bring Science and Religion together however, this doesn't make it so that anyone can use Science to formulate theories regarding God.  To date I actually haven't seen any scientific study aimed at theorizing God at all, most Science regarding the supernatural is used in an attempt to prove or disprove it all-together...never to explain the existence of God...but that might have something to do with Science and the Supernatural being separated by definition.
    Supernatural:
    1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    "a supernatural being"
    synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman,


    This "supernatural god" sounds like a magician, not someone who creates by Intelligent Design.

    Gravity is most definitely 'supernatural', because it can;
    1. expand the vacuum of space (magic)
    2. and also at the same time choose one quantum gas particle (redshift), and attach itself to it, then over billions of years draw other particles to that one particle and create planets and suns.
    3. it can slow the expansion of space down, and reverse itself where now it will pull your entire universe into one huge ball of mass,
    4. it will continue gravitating the huge ball of mass smaller and smaller, until it pulls it back to a singularity, and then back into the 'nothing'.

    Now that's magic, not science/Intelligent design, because no one has witnessed such a thing as this magical gravity that can do opposing things.
    Erfisflat
  • The Earth is flat and stationary

    The Earth is massive. If there was a curve at your lake your would be a massive freaking man. Just because you have a man made lake 3 miles wide does not mean you should see curvature. That is not math either sir. Math looks like this: 2+2=4 not "my lake is 2 miles and doesn't curve so the Earth is obviously flat" When you go over water the Water looks flat. When you are on a beach and look out the water is curved. The perspective on the boat is not reflective of the actual look of the water. The curve is so minimal as you travel as a speck on a giant rock you don't notice it up close. IF you stood on a tree over the beach you can see the clearly defined curvature.

    The money and equipment required to guard the world's coldest continent would be massive and expensive to stop even 1 small explorer from getting a basic look at the continent would require massive efforts and massive money. All of this in an effort to make you believe the Earth is flat for what reason. NO U.N guard thought that this entire lie needed to come to light? Not even one?

    Here is an actual statement. In a flat earth the center of the Earth would be relatively normal to the gravity we have today. As you went to the edges the gravity would get stronger and stronger until like a hill at the edges. This argument has been stated many times and has been agreed upon by most people who actually believe in the fundamental of our society gravity. I have been to Asia and it wasn't harder to walk than it was in North America or as in your theory Italy. 

    Saying the shape of the Earth was debated 500 years ago is an insane statement. First off if Nasa did just show off a ball not only would the organization be distrusted for falsehood if the Earth was theoretically "flat" but also people would not just believe something at first site because of a CGI ball made in 1971. 100 years ago was 1507 AD when Aristotle himself in 350 B.C declared the Earth round based off these very simple facts. You did not provide evidence for this so called debate 500 years ago.

    I wasn't asking a question I was making a statement about the way you are approaching your facts. 


    Hank
  • should essential service workers be allowed to strike?

    Of course public sector workers shouldn't be allowed to strike.  No less a figure than the quintessential liberal icon FDR spoke out against government unions being allowed to strike;

    The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.


    All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

    Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445



    MarcusTulliusCicero
  • The Earth is flat and stationary

    @Hank They are baseline starting to disagree with the most basic of concept that human's can all agree to and it's legit getting ridiculous. I think this whole debate can be made into a comedy show with the actual arguments they propose. "because apparently math isn't real math and that science is a concept made by the government and anyone who disagrees with me is a delinquent and i'm the all knowing one despite centuries of math and science proving me wrong but hey at least I can start debates on a website I have a lot of points on."
    Hank
  • The Earth is flat and stationary

    @Hank math is what proves the Earth is round and philosophers have known this for a while they refuse to point out the gravity/physics of the situation as well as the math that proves the Earth is round. He also dismisses the fact that the Earth has been universally agreed to be round since 350 B.C and refuses to respond to my question dismissing it as a "rant" showing his true colors as a denialist. A person who denies science in favor of his "theories" 
    Hank

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch