Why I like to Debate things

[alexander tzara]

With a Mass, of course, Deb. He's Mass-debating.

 

[Deborah]

Ah yes, I see now he is communicating solely with himself. Touch the one you love.

 

[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.

For Pyper

 

[Pyper]

Todd, I already read this. It makes no sense. You saying "not evolution" doesn't make it true. It just makes you self-deluded.

 

[Todd]

Todd, I already read this. It makes no sense. You saying "not evolution" doesn't make it true. It just makes you self-deluded.

your missing what I am saying there the answer was from the point of view of an sceintist when confronted with evolution and how that when people understand something the rules are changed

Thats why the dixon Todd converstaion i posted below it was there for.

 

[Mischka]

Originally posted by Todd Then turn a rock into a human if its repeatable.

I'm re-reading this thread, and in the background, my mind is still playing (in my best pop star voice) "I am a rock... I am an ISLAND."

Todd, what books have you read on evolution? I have honestly never come across your version of events before.

 

[Todd]

Originally posted by Todd Then turn a rock into a human if its repeatable.

I'm re-reading this thread, and in the background, my mind is still playing (in my best pop star voice) "I am a rock... I am an ISLAND."

Todd, what books have you read on evolution? I have honestly never come across your version of events before.

Sorry I summed up the highscool text books to much.

they generally start billions of years ago the enitre mass of the universe was all in a spinning mass no bigger than the dot at the end of a sentence.

then they move on to this dont exploded int becoming the universe.

Then it goes on the planet cooled off enough and the molecules started getting together.

and eventual over time about 4 billion years ago a man came from the molecule party that result in the planet cooling of that reulting in the dot exploding into the know universe.

so someshere that space dust{thats my rock taking it right back to the start} that was all compressesed to a period on a page became a man 4 billion years ago{thats my human}

Every body saying science is testable repeatable redoable if they believe all that should be able to take a rock in the lab and be able to bypass the billions of years that it took and with in 4-5 years make a human.

 

[Mischka]

Ah, high school text books. Notoriously under-inclusive, riddled with errors, and a bit too pat in their explanations. I'll see if I can dig up any titles that might explain the theory better to you (I'm approaching finals, however, so bear with me if it takes a while).

 

[Pyper]

Mischka, Mischka, Mischka.

What were you just berating me about a minute ago? Oh yeah. It was getting involved in a debate with Todd.

I am disappointed in you, young grasshopper.

::best stern sensei face::

 

[Problem Child]

Trying to explain evolution to Todd is like trying to have a serious discussion with a puppy about why he shouldn't shit on the carpet.

You can reason until you're blue in the face, but in the end all you'll wind up with is stained carpet.

 

[DevilMayCare]

Pyper - I think its just his boyish charm that causes people to traipse after Todd while he embroiders his intellectual doilies. You know about doilies, don't you? They're full of holes, just like Todd's arguments. I almost have to cover my eyes when I periodically drop into these threads, for fear of the carnage I'll find as otherwise sane people smash their heads against the brick wall of Todd's obdurate obfuscation.

I'll leave now, knowing with confidence that other unwitting men and will stumble into this place and engage our boyish friend from northern climes. There definitely should be a warning sign on Todd's threads..."Warning - Obfuscation Ahead."

 

[Mischka]

Mischka, Mischka, Mischka.

What were you just berating me about a minute ago? Oh yeah. It was getting involved in a debate with Todd.

I am disappointed in you, young grasshopper.

::best stern sensei face::

No, no! I'm not debating. Notice the even tone and non-inflammatory remarks in my posts. I'm merely attempting to provide information. I know my high school books were woefully incomplete on the topic, and it took three semesters of college and four classes on bio-evolutionary psychology to clear things up for me.

So, once again, Todd, I am not attempting to change your mind, but I hope to clarify the theory for you. I have many deeply religious friends that find evolution (even of humans) completely in step with Christianity. I'll dig through my stacks of books and bug them and I'll get back to you with suggested readings.

(And I promise not to engage in debate over the subject, Pyper and Problem Child. Honestly. I have only come to my opinions through study, and I believe that is the only way Todd will understand the fallacies everyone else sees in his arguments.)

[Edited by Mischka on 04-16-2001 at 10:18 PM]

 

[Laurel]

Here's the problem with this whole discussion, from what I've seen. Todd, you've stated on another thread that you cannot believe in evolution because in your mind, a god would not have set things up in that fashion. Therefore, to believe in evolution is to DISbelieve in a god.

What you need to realize - what others have tried to explain to you already - is that science and belief aren't mutually exclusive. Many great scientists look at the wonder of life and see it as evidence of a god's greatness. Others look at the wonder of life and see is as evidence of the amazing complexity that is Nature.

Either way, science is neither a cult nor a religion - it's a method for determining fact. Science and religion are not opposing forces, or they don't need to be. Evolution is not controversial. If you truly want to understand the world as it is - not as you wish it would be - you need to stop molding the facts to fit to your view and start molding your view to fit the facts. Just my 2 cents...flame away!

 

[lazarus UK]

Every body saying science is testable repeatable redoable if they believe all that should be able to take a rock in the lab and be able to bypass the billions of years that it took and with in 4-5 years make a human.

A slight non sequitur here, if I may demonstrate.

OK, and presumably someone of adequate faith should be able to manage it in a week?

A fortnight?

One presumes you have the faith which moveth mountains.

I'd settle for raising the dead, but I'm prejudiced ...

 

[Pyper]

Every body saying science is testable repeatable redoable if they believe all that should be able to take a rock in the lab and be able to bypass the billions of years that it took and with in 4-5 years make a human.

See, this is what drives me crazy about Todd. He constantly resorts to these silly questions for which any child knows the answer. Todd says science should be able to bypass the entirety of earth's history and produce a spontaneous human. Well, obviously, now listen closely Todd, yeah, put your ear right up to the screen:

SCIENCE CANNOT DO EVERYTHING!

Do we have a cure for cancer? No. Can we fly to Pluto and make our home there? No. Someday, maybe. As someday, I am sure, science will be able to produce a human from nothing. But right now in our evolution as humans, that is beyond our technology. We have however produced amino acids, life from inanimate and unliving material. That should be a clue that it can be done.

But some people just don't want to listen. And, Laurel, I'll take you up on that intervention thing. No more evolution threads for me. Forever. (Or at least a week.)

 

[Ally C]

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.

I've read through this thread (and others which are very similar!), and I don't think I'm being rude or 'wrong' in saying that you seem to be finding out other viewpoints while vehemently sticking to your own. I'm not suggesting that with enough debate we'd all ultimately end up with the self-same beliefs (although this is open to debate: perhaps we would!).

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.

I have to say that your core theme of 'improvability' (as in it can't be proven), is to some extent improvable (as in it can be improved upon). Yes, many - if not all - topics for debate can be read as purely subjective, and therefore as being redundant beyond any 'fun' we have discussing them. Surely there is more to any debates we hold than the act of the debate itself? That question sounds like a cry for divine help, and is comparable to asking "is there a God". Is there? Who can say ...

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.

Nonetheless, that 'first person' came to a decision. It may be 'all speculation', but don't lose sight of the importance of what we take for right and wrong. Question our beliefs, yes; sum them up as so many randomly chosen words with no certain foundation (and no certain future), no. I admit that it's difficult to thrash out a meaningful argument to back this up, certainly in the face of such nihilistic 'reasoning'. That doesn't mean that we should suspend belief in anything and everything. It also doesn't mean that we should cling stubbornly to things which we happen to have faith in. It's a fine line Todd, but your debates seem to shift emphasis from a communal learning process to an individual scale where the only thing we keep learning is how oppositional views are oppositional. I'm sorry, but I don't see much value in that [I have to add that there are merits, but these are often outweighed by what I have already described].

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.

There is a subtle difference between the outcomes of the 'fun' debating examples you provide and a certain idea of what form debating might take. Have you ever tried to argue on behalf of something you don't believe in, as in the spirit of certain debates? I don't mean a tongue-in-cheek / sarcastic / 'devil's advocate' display, but a sincere and reasoned attempt to get to grips with a view which you might not personally subscribe to. I'm not suggesting you do it on the BB, try it at a personal level and see how you get on. This will further your own understanding of a subject and may even modify your beliefs. The latter isn't always an issue, but when it is we all need to display a bit more openness to what it is we are in fact closing our minds to. There's no reason why this can't be 'fun' also.

Why do you like Debates?

They're fun! I've noticed the use of the term "diametrically opposed" on several occasions of late. I haven't used this expression (well, until now) as far as I can remember, but it does seem to be rather apt and easy to throw in as we throw our arms in the air and declare our eternal differences with one another. Ever thought that at times like this we are in fact "diametrically united", to re-coin the saying? One view cannot exist without its opposite, but the area between these opposites isn't so vast as it might appear. I can see why it could be said "One small step for man, one giant leap for Todd-kind [!]", but until Todd changes his own mind I doubt whether any of us can do it for him. I do hope I'm not coming across as personalising this too much Todd? It's just that no matter how wierd I find some of your ideas, you certainly make people think about their own. Just a bit too much perhaps? I don't think it's about coming to a dark[er] or light[er] 'side' [although I appreciated the humourous reference]. It should certainly never be about 'force', or the use thereof.

One final thought Todd, while I let you reassess your beliefs at your leisure: being God's advocate is exactly the same as being devil's advocate. It really doesn't matter which one you choose to be, as long as you are aware that you have made that choice. Remember, you can always change your mind after all ...

 

[Guru]