Why I like to Debate things

[Todd]

No, it's not to prove one view over the other view.

No, it's not to prove who's right and who's wrong.

No, it's not to make fun of someone.

The reason I like to debate things it to further my own understanding of a subject. I like to debate because its fun and entertaining ans long as no one gets angry and continues the debate in a civil manner. I like to debate because if we all beleived the same things what a dry boring pace that this would be. I like ot debate just for the fun of debating.

There are subjects/topics that no one will ever know the truth about no matter how dogmatic we get about it. those are the fun ones to debate. Topics/subjects such as Evolution or creation, no one was there to witness either and as much evidence that there is to support either there is as much evidence to go against them.

Morals are fun to debate, because again no one was there for the first person to find and think, "Hey that's right.", or, "Hey that's wrong." It's all speculation.

Religion is fun to debate because we do not really fully know which is right or wrong until the end if any is write or wrong.

Jesus is fun to debate, because as the Christian Jesus or the historical jesus its fun to llok at the different views of the man.

Sex is always fun to debate, because aside from all the tesing and flirting there is some learning to be done in it all.

Politics are fun to debate, to see both sides left and right hash it out and argue and bicker and then to watch someone walk up the center line between the to be called an extrmeist by those to the left and those to the right.

The Bible is fun to debate, becuase it stregthens and grows ones faith and belief and convictions in what they believe.

Why do you like Debates?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

"I like to debate things it to further my own understanding of a subject."

What about other, even relative subjects Todd? What about opening the mind inorder to "let all in?" What about a 360 degree point of view?

Huh? Huh?

 

[Todd]

Re:

What about other, even relative subjects Todd? What about opening the mind inorder to "let all in?" What about a 360 degree point of view?

Huh? Huh?

Sure relative topics are good as well, but they have to be something that peek my intersts, such as:

The in latest thing on the new concerning China

vs.

Can I sniff yer arse

The news on china is a relative subject that peeks my interest, although Can I sniff yer Arse may be relative I have no real interest in someone sticking thier nse near my sphincter.

No Offense to your hobby if it is one

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Topics/subjects such as Evolution or creation, no one was there to witness either and as much evidence that there is to support either there is as much evidence to go against them.

No, there isn't. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and practically none to refute it. That's what's so frustrating about your "fun" debates -- your inability to be swayed by evidence or argument. If you will never be moved from your quicksand castle, no matter how powerful the opposing position is presented, then there's no "fun" to be had in debating with you. I tell you that "rain is wet" and you say "no it isn't" no matter how often I take away your umbrella. Where is the satisfaction or fun or logic in that?

 

[Todd]

No, there isn't. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and practically none to refute it. That's what's so frustrating about your "fun" debates -- your inability to be swayed by evidence or argument. If you will never be moved from your quicksand castle, no matter how powerful the opposing position is presented, then there's no "fun" to be had in debating with you. I tell you that "rain is wet" and you say "no it isn't" no matter how often I take away your umbrella. Where is the satisfaction or fun or logic in that?

Fossils refute, dating methods refute {Oh yeah I forgot when the cretionist use the evolutionist own rules, the evolutionist change the definitions }, the star dates refute, evolutionist own laws of thermodynamics refute it {Oh yeah I forgot when the cretionist use the evolutionist own rules, the evolutionist change the definitions }.

If I agreed the sky was blue people would go into the reasons why It was not {thats called a rule change for thier benefit }. If I agreed water was wet people would explain why its not cause hydrogen{sp?} and oxygen are not wet {thats another rule change for thier advantage }.

Its all semantics really it is, they{evolutionist} create the rules, creationist use them for young earth definition, then the evolutionist redefine the rules cause they didn't work as well as they planned.

 

[lavender]

 

[Mischka]

I stay away from "debates" where no one will change their mind. Todd, your viewpoint on evolution in patently absurd to some, and their view is illogical to you, and ne'er the twain shall meet. I grew up holding the antithesis view from the majority in my small suburban town, and I have grown weary of the exercise in futility of arguing why I am different. That said, I enjoy discussing certain topics in order to expand my understanding and lend credibility to my viewpoint. As a lawyer-in-training, I need to be able to see both sides of an issue to most effectively present a winning argument for my side.

 

[Mischka]

Lavender, run away while you can. Once you're in Todd's web of macro and micro evolution, you will never escape. Ask Pyper. And anyway, you should be reading law books right now.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

*sigh*

"Evolutionists" don't make rules you ding-dong. First of all there are no "evolutionsts" (Geez, you make them sound like "communists" printing leaflets in a Greenwich Village basement). There are zoologists and biologists and chemists and paleontologists -- but there are no "Evolutionists" going about with red markers "changing the rules".

Evolution is a process observed, hypothesised, theorized, experimented on repeatedly, tested repeatedly, and had conclusion based up using the wacky, silly, awful rules of, er, THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, you total goofball you. The "rules" of science (Holy Jesus I can't believe this isn't getting through to you) BEG you debate, change and update conclusions. The scientific process WANTS you to prove its theories wrong. It goes out of its way to make allowance after allowance for alteration.

Todd, please wake up and smell the millenium.

[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 04-16-2001 at 10:56 AM]

 

[lavender]

 

[Mischka]

Do let me take a break once in awhile, Mischka.

Nope. Cracks the whip. Bury that nose in your book!

 

[lavender]

 

[Todd]

*sigh*


Evolution is a process observed, hypothesised, theorized, experimented on repeatedly, tested repeatedly, and had conclusion based up using the wacky, silly, awful rules of, er, THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, you total goofball you.

Todd, please wake up and smell the millenium.

[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 04-16-2001 at 10:56 AM]

Then turn a rock into a human if its repeatable. surely in a lab you can bypass the billions of years neccesary. I'll even supply you the rock to use.

I repeat the only observable evolution porcess is micro evolution whihch the bible teaches, a bird becomes a bird, a fish becomes a fish, a dog becomes a dog.

To buy into true evolution theory I would have to through all logic out the door and believe a rock became a human. that a line of random mutations came is such a perfect line inorder for it to develop from a rock to a human, and that there wasn't one fatal mutation, which supposidly happens, didn't occur in the whole rock to human geneology. Its just that a theory.

 

[DevilMayCare]

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.

Wernher von Braun

 

[Weevil]

Then turn a rock into a human if its repeatable. surely in a lab you can bypass the billions of years neccesary. I'll even supply you the rock to use.

To buy into true evolution theory I would have to through all logic out the door and believe a rock became a human. that a line of random mutations came is such a perfect line inorder for it to develop from a rock to a human, and that there wasn't one fatal mutation, which supposidly happens, didn't occur in the whole rock to human geneology. Its just that a theory.

I'm a wee bit confused. Do those of us who think that evolution is a fairly sound theory believe that humans evolved from rocks??? I thought it was monkeys and stuff

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The trouble is that Todd is getting his definition of what evolution is from the Creationsit camp. And for the last century they have gotten it wrong.

Todd, listen very, very carefully -- you aren't understanding what the theory of evolution and natural selection is. Nothing you said about it above, and nothing you've posted about it in the past, is accurate. Do you understand?

 

[alexander tzara]

I like to debate because I often find out what my views are on a subject by arguing about it. This makes me think through a subject in a more logical and objective way than I would usually. I also think that offering your personal views on life is one way of defining yourself and showing the rest of the world who you really are.

If I'm being honest, I also like to debate to show off whatever little snippets of knowledge I have. It feels good if you debate well enough to make the other people involved change their views on a subject, or at least think more closely about their firm beliefs. I guess that's the competitive side in me coming out. I'm not really interested in making people think the same way as me but I like to try and shake things up if I think people have too black and white an attitude about something. I think my only unshakable belief is that things aren't black and white.

I think that most of Todd's arguments for Creationism come across as very silly and ill-thought-through but it always amuses me how determined people are to proselytise him. The term is usually used in relation to feverish religious types determined to convert "non-believers" to their one true God, so DCL's attempts to shake some sense (evolutionism) into the lad always make me chuckle.

[Edited by alexander tzara on 04-16-2001 at 12:05 PM]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

If he were stupid I wouldn't bother. But he isn't, so I do. It's my new mantra. "Must get Todd to read. Must get Todd to read. Must get Todd to read..."

 

[alexander tzara]

Yes, the force is strong in him, Lord Vader. Let's turn him to the dark side.





[Edited by alexander tzara on 04-16-2001 at 12:25 PM]

 

[alexander tzara]

Humbug! It's not fair that the BB always advertises it whenever you edit something. It looks like I've tried to censor something inflamatory above, and all I did was change the word "power" to "force".

 

[Angel]

I think it only displays that if you edit it after it's been viewed.

 

[alexander tzara]

That makes sense, 'cause if you get to it quick enough it doesn't show. I should really preview my posts before I send them.

 

[Pyper]

Once you're in Todd's web of macro and micro evolution, you will never escape. Ask Pyper.

Yes! Run! Run while you can, you foolish people! Or you will be forever doomed to illogical debate in which you can never win! ARRGGHHHHhhhhh.....

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Todd, this is what I meant, this is what's happening......

You say you want to be enlightened - but I find - and I'm sure Dix would agree - that you are only really wishing to be enlightened regarding what you already believe - which is not enlightenment at all.

It's simply reinforcement.

Blinder's Todd - blinders.

Dix may not be totally right. Maybe. Because like I said - nobody "really knows they weren't there" - it's all a bit of speculation, by degree. But the speculation Dix refers to comes with a very heavy dosages of real, working, mechanical and scientific facts.

So, it would be likely that a "realist" like myself - if forced to "take sides" would go with the side with the "most probable/provable reality."

And because Dix has been so thorough about his statements to you (and pretty damn nice too) - well most of us (particularly us realists) must conclude that you do....

Have your blinders on and are really searching for reinforcement.

 

[Todd]

Question: Where did the universe come from?

Answer: An explosion of nothing into everything.

Question: Where did life come from?

Answer: Primordial soup biliions of years ago.

Question: Where did Primordial soup come from?

Answer: The explosion of nothing and the rocks that it formed.

Question: Where did man come from?

Answer: A series of natural selection that took place in the primordial soup.

Question: What is that process called?

Answer: Not Evolution.


Dixon: It's raining Todd.
Todd: Yes it is, and its wet.
Dixon: No its not.
Todd: But rain is water, water is wet.
Dixon: No Water is H2O, hydrogen is not wet and niether is oxegen.
Todd: Then why are you offering me your umbrella if it's not wet?
Dixon: It's raining Todd.