so far he hasn't called to violence or declared anyone an imminent threat. I think the point of sites like this if for free discussion. the only way to negate his ideas is to counter them... unless he starts excessive spamming, but that not a hate speech issue.
The key elements of a scientific theory is that it explains all past events, and predicts future events.
We look at ancient stars and see only light elements. Elements that would naturally stabilize from cooling energy. Heavier elements require fusion of the cooled lighter elements. The big bang explains why there were only light elements in early stars. It also explains why they were so massive as the young universe was full of far more dense then today.
The big bang predicts a universe expanding uniformly in all directions. we see that.
The big bang predicts a faint leftover radiation uniformly in all directions. we see that.
The big bang predicts an early universe that was much hotter and much more uniform. in the universe's baby picture, we see that.
We can see back in time to moments after the big bang, as the massive energy blob was still cooling... how do you explain the massive energy blob besides the big bang, or a god triggered big bang?!?
The evidence is clear, im sure the pros got more evidence and more technical explanations, but i think this is a shut case as is. No big bang simulation needed. that would probably be deadly. not smart.
Yes, I made a statement about all scientifically established theories. Please prove me wrong.
"the scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. If something is not observable, measurable, or repeatable"
You have some deep misconceptions about science. Repeatable are the results of experiments / studies... not events. I'm not sure how that even makes logical sense,
Science considers all the evidence, including indirect evidence. It has to explain ALL the data with no inconsistencies. Its like a detective, he doesn't have to see the crime to piece together what happened. Now imagine thousands of detectives, with PhDs, working the same case, reviewing each others data, and conclusions, with incentive to debunk, as they are often rivals. We can't rebuild stars on earth, yet we know so much about them. Are you saying that we dont know anything about the stars?
Yes, that is what i'm saying. Definitions are technical and hard. Everyone knows what a metal is, can you define it without making it obvious you googled it? I asked you to define life, you backed away. Must be harder then you thought.
regarding the non life to life, not everything is simple and has a clear border. is a virus life?
There is a big difference between declaring a specific thing as alive or not, and declaring a comprehensive definition of life. By all means, define it.
Newton discovered the math behind gravity. He came up with the law of gravity which accurately describes the strength of the gravity between 2 objects.
Einstein EXPANDED on his theory by explaining how gravity works, what it bends, why it works over distances. He did not "disprove," "correct," or "change" any of Newtons findings. He added to them. He EXPANDED them. Every single one of newtons discoveries on gravity are as accurate today as ever. Please do not try to interpret my words for me.
The big bang was not observed or recreated. But to think a universal event of that magnitude would leave no evidence is absurd. I guess if police dont witness a crime in action or could physically recreate it, they have to let the suspect go? No point in gathering evidence.
Lol. Yes. Im sure we can go on forever but this generalized and shifting conversation wont get us any conclusions, but it was been fun.
If i.may clarify a few things. "Capitalist" wasnt meant to be derogatory. Capitalism is the game, capitalists are simply the individual players. I would call anyone who opens a business as a capitalist, although workers could also fit that a more technical definition. I dont think businesses are bad, they have specific job, profits, and they have every right to fight for them, although they do not have the right to keep consumers and employees from defending their interests as well.
Of course we should be competitive, but imo, we are over competitive already. Almost all 1st world nations either have stronger regulations, strong welfare programs, and/or higher taxes. These companies are supposed to be lead by entrepreneurs and innovators. They are supposed to find and exploit market opportunities in a given situation, not mainpulate the situation to make business a no brainer! Thats not an entrepreneur, that's a leech. I dont care about the survival of an individual business. Bad businesses are supposed to fail. We should impoverish our people so that they can make money easy.
The GM employees are standing up for their rights. I do not think americans should surrender to the decrees of owners, otherwise we are already a feudalist nation. Teachers have had to buy supplies with their own sparce salaries, a short term strike is better then perpetuating that situation and i question whether the market has done a good job determining salaries. How are bankers paid as well if not better then doctors? A top banker makes a world class neurosurgeon look like a bum with far less education, effort, or societal benefit. Teachers should not be paid like bus drivers. They are valuable and should be rewarded. When we passed laws to favor our car industry, american cars became considered garbage. Businesses should be challenged, not cuddled
The big bang is obviously not repeatable, but its effects are very much observed and measured, just like our scientific knowledge regarding stars and early earth. To refute the big bang one would have to show any evidence of inconsistencies such us ununiform expansion or an alternative explanation that can challenge it. As i said previously, no scientifically established theory has ever been debunked, only expanded.
Life is complicated, we cant even say for sure what life is. Things like viruses seem to demonstrate an inbetween step of life. Thus between non life and life there is probably several steps of quasi life, like loose DNA, or viruses. You could simplify my answer to "yes", but that will create confusion. Fully formed complex life can never come from non life, but some fundamental prelife can. Bacteria are pretty much a loose mess of organ chunks in a membrane completely disorganized, and they are far more complex then viruses or what we would expect protolife to be like.
So your abiogenesis conflict is not with evolution, since evolution didnt kick in until after life already existed. Your concern is with chemistry, not biology. Maybe some biochemistry, but still no mutation, no selection, no evolution.
Certainly nothing in this world is perfect, but as i demonstrated with my stationary earth analogy, being proven is not that big of a deal as someone can simply disprove it later on. This is the highest standard we as humans can hope to acheive, and certainly better then a system based simply on faith.
Re: big bang
I did say the logic part with the balloon analogy; when we first discovered the universe was actually expanding, that was the logical, and mind blowing, hypothesis... but after that we sought evidence to support it. That evidence was the cosmic background radiation and the universe's baby picture. Both of which were also mentioned in my post.
Another aspect of a good theory is that all observations, including future ones, fit perfectly in, as has happened with both evolution and the big bang. We dont know what happened at the moment of the big bang, but as soon as it started to cool and expand, we can draw a straight line through every single one of our observations and get straight to today.
Abiogenesis states that fully formed life comes from non life, like maggots from old meat. Chemistry details how molecules increased in complexity in natural configurations to build fundamental blocks of life. Your abiogenesis concern is different from the original concept, and also has roots in chemistry, not evolution or most biology. Evolution is how life changes from life to life. Mutation and natrual selection have zero to do with formation of dna, membranes, etc. Thats pure chemistry.
Any dictator can run a command economy. Just think of the kings of middle ages. They didnt regulate the economy (cause there wasnt much economy), but they could. They could claim all the money and property as theirs. They can even claim people or their lives. The whole nation belongs to them. State ownership =/= public ownership in all cases.
If min wage increases consumer spending and business patronage, what business in its right mind would cut back on staff with a rush of new customers at their door? The increase in sales will partially, if not entirely, negate the increased costs. At least in big cities with large numbers of consumers. This is often missed in the over simplified min wage analysis.
What really hurts our economy is big corporations stifling competition, like amazon making knock offs of any successful product on their small.merchant marketplace and then only advertising their product in searchs. Capitalism needs competition, but capitalists fight to destroy the competition. Yes its possible for government to.pass bad laws, but companies left to their own devices will inevitably create monopolies and abuse our systems to their exclusive benefit. The invisible hand is bullshit. Its a lie just like trickle down economics to get you to shoot yourself in the foot in the name of idealism over reality.
Yes, they are certainly command economies.
They dont have public ownership or equality so they still arent socialist. Decisions are made for them, not by them. Therefore not socialist.
I dont understand how conservatives can claim that unions, regulations, etc stiffle the economy. I get how it seems logical on a very basic level, but so does a stationary flat earth, that doesnt make it true. Most other 1st world nations have higher effective taxes, more regulations, more unions.
It was around 70s or 80s that we started demonizing unions and regulations (even the moderate dems like bill clinton). And guess what, thats about the time the rest of the 1st world (with more regulations, more unions, and similar taxes) started to catch up to us.
Conservatives focus to much on the profits of the wealthy thinking it will all trickle down, but it mostly languishes in savings accounts or gets bounced around the stock.market. this is benefitial only to the few directly profiting from it now, and hurts our entire economy in the long term.
Liberitarianism works in a mom and pop.society. but when the company your dealing with is a goliath, its only fair the people shouldnt have to fend for themselves individually. They should have a right to be represented by a union. United we stand, divided we fall.
The profits of individual companies is not a measure of economic health. A strong consumer base is.
I have challenged many to show me these "failed scientific assertions" with a caveat. Show me anything disproven that was attained using the scientific method (whether experimentation, observation, or mathematics). I know things like the aether and abiogenesis were discarded, but those were assumptions from pre science days.
My real conclusion is that god would put his commands into an unadultered state, such as our minds with a conscience, as well as free will to defy our conscience. I believe any semi intelligent being would not leave their instructions in the hands of fallible men for millenia, including during christianity's darkest times of both corrupt church and government (the middle ages). That is a bit of my overall opinion but as i said, ive moved away from arguing against faith and towards simply defending science.
Im not saying your an immature child saying its magic, nor i absolutely dont know that it isnt your answer. It very well.might be. But it also very well.might not. Religion is simply a matter of faith. We wont be building divine detectors any time soon so we will not know if your answer is right or wrong probably ever. The only honest thing i can say about the big bang is "we dont know". Maybe it is a god, but im not gonna assume that blindly. And pascals wager isnt a 50/50, im assuming youve covered that argument with others.
The big bang is a theory in a scientific sense, meaning it definitely happened in some sense, although we openly dont know many details. If you see a balloon being inflated, its logical to assume it was at some point deflated, even if you never saw it. The echo of the big bang that we see uniformly acorss the universe and analysis of the universes baby picture proved the big bang. Experimentation is a major aspect of science, but it isnt the only one. Observation is also commonly used. We cant build a star in a lab, but by comparing the spectrum of the light via microscope we can determine what its made off, how old it is, how far it is, how bright it is, how long it has, and much more. These are facts attained from observation and they are indisputed.
Re: science
Science is not the end of all knowledge, it is the most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively. And i didnt say science is about unproven hypothesis, but *undisproven* hypothesis. Meaning that no matter how many tries it takes amongst the entire international peer review community, noone was able to disprove the hypothesis.
I can logically prove that the earth is stationary. I place a round object on a flat surface and it doesnt move. Stationary earth proven! This should show you that proving something is FAR easier then having something that cannot be disproven. Because with a different experiment, a stationary earth can be very much disproven.
Or for another angle i can argue con on right wing policies like why the invisible hand is nonsense, or how markets can fail us and themselves. Either direction is fine.
I want to convert you if i can. What issue would most convince you that left wing economics, obviously not every policy, work.
Im sure it will take more then 1 debate to do it. I picked the subject but I ask that you pick the first specific topic, and nothing easy for me. Min wage, Gov interference, government ventures. This debate (not us in the comments) was wholly disappointing.
Regarding the rich and homeless. The rich move to big blue cities because thats where the theaters, museums, restaurants and nightclubs are. The poor move to the city because thats where all the jobs are. Both of these independently create demand, and that raises prices. None of this is a "democratic policy". It isnt a policy at all. Its basic, logical, economics. I stated so before, i think you ignored it and restated your opinion.
This is what happens when you successfully run a city, or potentially any region. But success has nuance as well, and dealing with that nuance, like making sure workers can still make it into the city and that working is worth it. You do want to make work worthwhile right? Because hungry people get desperate, and if work isnt feeding them, crime might. I prefer a min wage, but ill take welfare over police state. Welfare is often cheaper. Most of these arent appeals to your humanity but logical solutions to our problems.
Ill have to look into hong kong, but i will say that democracy worked ok 3000 years ago in tiny greek city states, it collapsed when it got any bigger til 2,500 years later. What works at for a town may not work for our sea to sea nation.
Actually we are all taxed the same! Recently looked this up, forgive the excitement over a new argument. Bill gates first 20k gets taxed about as much as a welfare recepient. We all get to keep nearly all our 20k. When he earns his first 100k, he kept as much of that 100k as any accountant or whenever else in the same jurisdiction. Its only those last excessive dollars that lose 35%. And even then, thats before exceptions. So the "progressive" system is pretty damn equal. We all get taxed the same. We just never get as far up the ladder as the successful. Earning more always gets you more money in the end. And the taxes are very proportional.
+you get amazon paying zero (0) !!!! Taxes
And buffet paying less % (the thing your complaining about) then his secretary in taxes!!!
Is there any topic you wish to debate me on? I find the limited rounds and audience help focus the subject and make reaching a conclusion much more likely.
Im not sure your point about deregulation/regulation.
I do not mean the right selectively deregulates. My concern is that they blindly deregulate. All trump (and others) do is brag how many regulations they eliminate without discussing or caring about which regulations the eliminate or their individual pro/con.
I also dont understand selective regulation. Unless you mean promoting an industry like renewables, just like the gov promoted railroads, motorvehicles, buclear, and many other revolutionary technologies that were too new and risk for private investment but were for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Left wing regulations regulate whole industries and are not company specific so it cannot be selective except in some very nuanced ways. The good thing about government is we can demand investigations, answers, and leadership changes if we do smell something fishy. We have no say in private enterprises.
We have amongst the loosest regulations are the first world, who do we have to be more competitive then? Do you want a race to the bottom so we can start competing with 3rd world nations for shit jobs? I would rather invest in education and start stealing the good jobs from the first world, solidifying ourselves as a superpower for the next century.
The goventment enables the rich to make the most of their resources, i dont see why it cant do the same for the poor. And either way, my reasons for supporting the poor is to maintain a functioning consumer base and a stable economy so that we as a nation can prosper in addition to the bleeding heart idealism.
Im not sure what connection you are trying to make between wealthy and homeless both living in expensive blue cities. Wealthy want to live in places with things to do. Restaurants, clubs, high rises with big views. Therefore they go to cities. The poor want to live in places with available work, which also ends up in cities. Everyone wants to live in cities, which drives up demand, land value, and rent. Rising rents cause more and more poor to become homeless. This is economics, not political policies. The millionaires are not causing the homelessness, the democrats are not causing the homelessness, economics and the so called "invisible hand" is causing the homelessness. And without affordable housing or other assistance programs the workers the city needs will not be able to available anywhere near, and the whole system collapses. Democratic policies like affordable housing and minimum wage ensure that the cities have workers who can afford to live there. Workers the cities badly need. Maybe thats why most cities, especially the successful ones, are deep blue, even in red states. Laissez faire policies would destroy a city.
This presumed connection between the wealthy and homeless that you tried to make, but in all honesty could only say "isnt that suspicious" and couldnt actually connect. Is a dumbing down of reality in order to reach a convenient conclusion.
Im trying to focus the discussion so we can reach a conclusion, so i skipped a few points like guns and neocons that could be whole conversations themselves. Feel free to bring them up later.
Except some of your own sources contradict you. That is some poor game on your part.
276 kidnapped girls in 1 incident. The number of missing children in africa is obviously much larger. Your making dishonest comparisons to defend a bigoted claim.
What is this claims of man made ebola and aids? You cry about bad vaccines, but then cry that we lack vaccines. Your just mentioning random conspiracy theories without proof. I really doubt you know what your talking about. All i can say is that i would reevaluate your racist and bigoted views. You failed to respond to the bloody and criminal histories of non white people. Is it because they disprove your racism?
yeah blue states have the most wealthy, the wealthy can choose where they live, and blue states that invest in their people and their areas through taxes are good places to live. Sure they have their ghettos, and red states have their trailer parks, but overall the areas are far more desirable. Thats not a bad thing. Having millionaires doesn't mean you support the policies they believe in. You can live in sunny LA and still send money to the traitor in alabama who wants to lower your federal tax burden. The oligarchy doesn't come from where you live but from how the laws set up, this point is moot.
As is the point of my characterization of the right. I've said it many times (at least once on this site, but i'm rather new), I agree with many right wing complaints, just not right wing solutions. I have nothing against most of the people, until they do/say something dumb but that goes same for the left like Maij23. I do have a problem with the LEADERSHIP, and their counter productive sometimes treasonous solutions. Obviously not every member of the house, but top leadership hell yeah. And it isn't a generalization when I give specific names like McConnell, who I consider to be the most corrupt person in modern american politics. So I reject your claim about me, and demand proof.
I'm glad I got you to agree that democrats are fighting money's influence over our politics while republicans fight to maintain its hold on us. I dont see how all the other issues combined can be more important then that, but why can't republicans find pro life, pro guns leaders who aren't trying to give rich people vip access to them? I hope that in the future I can prove that the democratic platform is fighting to defend the american dream. Do you think those mindless factory jobs could have afforded an american dream without strong worker and union protections from the government? Left wing policies made us a super power, right wing policies are letting the rest of the world catch up.
banning a few extreme forms of guns is not the same as banning guns. Why dont we fill our streets with full automatic, or miniguns? how about some grenade launchers? we can keep escalating this all the way, at some point we have to stop. Where would you stop?
Bernie doesn't dance around it, he openly does the math. Your taxes go up, but your premium goes down. It only makes sense that cutting out the middle man helps costs. Would you feel better if the government just called it a premium instead? its the same money, only you save.
The wealthy did not attain that wealth independent of government, but often with government help, whether enforcement of laws, building of infrastructure, provision of loans, or an educated and healthy workforce. those things dont happen magically. Now that the wealthy have used our society to make their wealth, they wish to cry victim when its time for them to pay their part. You will not become wealthy no matter how much you work if a car accident or an illness (not all of which comes from life choices) bankrupts you. You will not make it if you live in a neighborhood isolated without public transportation or road access. And you will not make it if your illiterate or otherwise undereducated. These things require taxes. Taxes are not a dirty word.
The founding fathers put many limits on speech. Speech is not perfectly free. 1 out of 3 republicans also supported restricting speech in that same survey. Until it is clear what kind of speech they are limiting, this point is meaningless.
Some early vaccines used cells from abortions to grow the weakened virus. There were no fetuses inside of the actual vaccines. Those abortions were from the 1960s, and no aborted tissue has been used for vaccines since. Those 2 fetuses from the 60s have saved millions of lives and counting.
your own snopes link said the story is false.... maybe you need to step up your game.
If someone wanted to control population they would not invent vaccines and let diseases keep killing. your beliefs are illogical.
White people have been just as criminal as every other population. The history of china and japan is just as bloody and abusive to minorities and poor. As for the history of African and other indigenous people... well a lack of record is not proof of a good record. Many African and American tribes were quite war-like, took slaves, and some even cannibalized and sacrificed. Your view of history is bigoted and full of racist beliefs.
And if you dont know anything of Boko Haram, I would recommend looking them up instead of being proud of ignorance. And if your so politically minded, try reading news once in a while, they were all over all the news for a long time after kidnapping and enslaving 276 school girls.
"he dialetical materialsim and historical materialsim"
not sure what this means.
as for the rest of your post, yes. Also I believe any form of socialism invented by and in order to support a dictator with zero public input is not a legitimate socialist theory. Its a dictatorship with public ownership of nothing. It is a propaganda lie to placate the public.
Just because you have a command economy doesn't mean the public has any control over it. And if the public does not control the means of production, you dont have socialism. Public ownership is the key defining characteristic of socialism. If that is missing, its not socialism. Everything else is irrelevant.
1 unelected person doesnt mean #liberals anything.
You are generalizing ~100 million people based off what 1 person told you online. Thats their opinion, not all liberals. Generalizing that much is insane.
Boko haram isnt a regular crime, its a belief structure that leads to routine such actions. And they are all black.
Are you upset im applying the same standard to blacks that you apply to white? Lol
You never answered any of my questions:
What percentage of white people are white supremacists? What percentage of a population justifies a generalization? How far should the generalization be applied?
Using your logic cant all people be guilty of all things?
What percentage of white people are white supremacists? What percentage of a population justifies a generalization? How far should the generalization be apploed?
Using your logic cant all people be guilty of all things?
In your own words, this is a berry, not the mushroom from earlier. Also you specifically used the term psilocybin, which is the hallucinatory mushroom.
I dont think this conversation is going anywhere. Sorry.
Psilocybin is found mostly in halluncinatory mushrooms. Kt is what causes you to hallucinate. So you are talking abiut hallucinatory mushrooms.
There are medical properties. Which is why we derive medicine from them. This allows us better control over the dosage and easier for people to store/use them.
If we are insisting on missed points, any follow up on that apple? We agree good nutrition can help prevent some chronic illnesses... but it wont do much good by itself once damage was already done.
Also not all illnesses are caused by poor nutrition. What will you give to treat aids or tuberculosis.
I have no comment about your theories regarding hallucinatory mushrooms. I stated medications that came from plants have similar side effects. Other medications have other side effects.
Many medications do come from plants. However they are refined and the dosages can be much higher. This makes them more effective in many situations, and have stronger side effects. For some dosages it would be impossible to eat that many plants.
Many people died from lack of antibiotics. The black death wouldve been completely preventable.
That's right. Good nutrition is the best way to stave off many chronic illnesses. However, it often isnt enough once the illness has gotten bad. Nobody without high blood pressure is on medication for blood pressure to prevent high blood pressure. People on those medications already have pressure high enough to cause a stroke and nutrition alone is too little too late. It is still necessary to keep the condition from getting worse, but the damage has already been done. No apple is going to reverse it, or instantly bring it down to something your heart can handle today.
Your profile says your from france and you have hinted strongly at being not american. Now you say east side of cleveland....
I dont think it would be wise to use yourself as a premise in an online debate, you will have to disclose an uncomfortable amount of information. Without this information however, your personal circumstances are unproveable, and thus irrelevant. Chock it up to luck. If this seems unfair, atleast be thankful you arent part of the majority born to a 3rd world or autocratic nation. :D
I dont think his intent was to outrage liberals with this post, although that may very well happen. Maybe other posts, but the trolling on this post seems targeted. I was referring mostly to the person behind those words, and his intent.
And i believe i showed this outrage by calling him out. Triggered isnt a specifically defined word. I find myself often triggered by ignorance or stupidity, but not in an outrage kinda way. Not every form of action is outrage or butthurtedness.
The point was he seemed intent on trying to trigger a maximum number of conservatives, regardless of whether or not it was effective. And regardless of how hard he had to twist his words into something both completely dishonest and wrong. So the question is: why?
Do you got out of your way to phrase your title in the most incorrect way in order to trigger a maximum number of conservatived? I know you clarified in your previous debate that you dont mean all white people... but you could have made that clear in your title. Instead you clearly said all white people as you said it again now and that is blatantly wrong.
Your essentially using the same stupid tactics as conservatives when they blame all muslims for every islamic act of terrorism. You are wrong.
you know i didn't read the 500 page bill and neither did you. Half our representatives probably didnt read it either. Its details arent the point. Congress is supposed to discuss and negotiate the fine point. not bar it from ever even getting 1 vote. Other bills will come, from the left. And the right wing leadership will do all they can to stop it. Can you show me any bill from the right that does anything to address this probably? I suspect that I can find some that directly support the problem coming from the right. They are creating an oligarchy. They are stealing this nation from the people. This is treason. How is this not priority #1!?
I think special interest groups are ruining the discourse of every single issue and creating the hyperpartisan state we are in. I think it is the primary problem in this country. That being said, democrats arent coming for your guns, slippery slopes arent healthy. They aren't coming for your income... unless you are incredibly wealthy and earned it using the many institutions and infrastructure of this nation, or just were born into it. And democrats aren't coming for your speech. political correctness is a social movement, not a legal one. it is speech. These are all caricatures of what the left actually stands for. Its like getting your us news from chinese newspapers... really?
what ailment do apples treat?
If you want a medicinal mushroom, eat maitake. Its the healthiest one. It is expensive tho.
Those mushrooms help prevent illness due to being excellent sources of nutrition. Are you sick? are you using them as medicine? or are you just enjoying a meal?
Not every food has medicinal properties, and not every medicinal herb is food. Medicinal herbs have side effects. I linked to my source, your just ranting in response.
you can store *SOME* of these herbs.... what about all the others? i guess you already admitted you cant by using the word some. I guess people with those illnesses can just go die.
yes, republicans who supported bigger government, free land giveaways, and heavy industrial interference. with a constituency of urban northerners....
no, the whole past republicans/democrats part was brought up by someone else, I'm simply showing how absurd it is.
so far he hasn't called to violence or declared anyone an imminent threat. I think the point of sites like this if for free discussion. the only way to negate his ideas is to counter them... unless he starts excessive spamming, but that not a hate speech issue.
The key elements of a scientific theory is that it explains all past events, and predicts future events.
We look at ancient stars and see only light elements. Elements that would naturally stabilize from cooling energy. Heavier elements require fusion of the cooled lighter elements. The big bang explains why there were only light elements in early stars. It also explains why they were so massive as the young universe was full of far more dense then today.
The big bang predicts a universe expanding uniformly in all directions. we see that.
The big bang predicts a faint leftover radiation uniformly in all directions. we see that.
The big bang predicts an early universe that was much hotter and much more uniform. in the universe's baby picture, we see that.
We can see back in time to moments after the big bang, as the massive energy blob was still cooling... how do you explain the massive energy blob besides the big bang, or a god triggered big bang?!?
The evidence is clear, im sure the pros got more evidence and more technical explanations, but i think this is a shut case as is. No big bang simulation needed. that would probably be deadly. not smart.
Yes, I made a statement about all scientifically established theories. Please prove me wrong.
"the scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. If something is not observable, measurable, or repeatable"
You have some deep misconceptions about science. Repeatable are the results of experiments / studies... not events. I'm not sure how that even makes logical sense,
Science considers all the evidence, including indirect evidence. It has to explain ALL the data with no inconsistencies. Its like a detective, he doesn't have to see the crime to piece together what happened. Now imagine thousands of detectives, with PhDs, working the same case, reviewing each others data, and conclusions, with incentive to debunk, as they are often rivals. We can't rebuild stars on earth, yet we know so much about them. Are you saying that we dont know anything about the stars?
Yes, that is what i'm saying. Definitions are technical and hard. Everyone knows what a metal is, can you define it without making it obvious you googled it? I asked you to define life, you backed away. Must be harder then you thought.
regarding the non life to life, not everything is simple and has a clear border. is a virus life?
There is a big difference between declaring a specific thing as alive or not, and declaring a comprehensive definition of life. By all means, define it.
Newton discovered the math behind gravity. He came up with the law of gravity which accurately describes the strength of the gravity between 2 objects.
Einstein EXPANDED on his theory by explaining how gravity works, what it bends, why it works over distances. He did not "disprove," "correct," or "change" any of Newtons findings. He added to them. He EXPANDED them. Every single one of newtons discoveries on gravity are as accurate today as ever. Please do not try to interpret my words for me.
The big bang was not observed or recreated. But to think a universal event of that magnitude would leave no evidence is absurd. I guess if police dont witness a crime in action or could physically recreate it, they have to let the suspect go? No point in gathering evidence.
Lol. Yes. Im sure we can go on forever but this generalized and shifting conversation wont get us any conclusions, but it was been fun.
If i.may clarify a few things. "Capitalist" wasnt meant to be derogatory. Capitalism is the game, capitalists are simply the individual players. I would call anyone who opens a business as a capitalist, although workers could also fit that a more technical definition. I dont think businesses are bad, they have specific job, profits, and they have every right to fight for them, although they do not have the right to keep consumers and employees from defending their interests as well.
Of course we should be competitive, but imo, we are over competitive already. Almost all 1st world nations either have stronger regulations, strong welfare programs, and/or higher taxes. These companies are supposed to be lead by entrepreneurs and innovators. They are supposed to find and exploit market opportunities in a given situation, not mainpulate the situation to make business a no brainer! Thats not an entrepreneur, that's a leech. I dont care about the survival of an individual business. Bad businesses are supposed to fail. We should impoverish our people so that they can make money easy.
The GM employees are standing up for their rights. I do not think americans should surrender to the decrees of owners, otherwise we are already a feudalist nation. Teachers have had to buy supplies with their own sparce salaries, a short term strike is better then perpetuating that situation and i question whether the market has done a good job determining salaries. How are bankers paid as well if not better then doctors? A top banker makes a world class neurosurgeon look like a bum with far less education, effort, or societal benefit. Teachers should not be paid like bus drivers. They are valuable and should be rewarded. When we passed laws to favor our car industry, american cars became considered garbage. Businesses should be challenged, not cuddled
The big bang is obviously not repeatable, but its effects are very much observed and measured, just like our scientific knowledge regarding stars and early earth. To refute the big bang one would have to show any evidence of inconsistencies such us ununiform expansion or an alternative explanation that can challenge it. As i said previously, no scientifically established theory has ever been debunked, only expanded.
Life is complicated, we cant even say for sure what life is. Things like viruses seem to demonstrate an inbetween step of life. Thus between non life and life there is probably several steps of quasi life, like loose DNA, or viruses. You could simplify my answer to "yes", but that will create confusion. Fully formed complex life can never come from non life, but some fundamental prelife can. Bacteria are pretty much a loose mess of organ chunks in a membrane completely disorganized, and they are far more complex then viruses or what we would expect protolife to be like.
So your abiogenesis conflict is not with evolution, since evolution didnt kick in until after life already existed. Your concern is with chemistry, not biology. Maybe some biochemistry, but still no mutation, no selection, no evolution.
Certainly nothing in this world is perfect, but as i demonstrated with my stationary earth analogy, being proven is not that big of a deal as someone can simply disprove it later on. This is the highest standard we as humans can hope to acheive, and certainly better then a system based simply on faith.
Re: big bang
I did say the logic part with the balloon analogy; when we first discovered the universe was actually expanding, that was the logical, and mind blowing, hypothesis... but after that we sought evidence to support it. That evidence was the cosmic background radiation and the universe's baby picture. Both of which were also mentioned in my post.
Another aspect of a good theory is that all observations, including future ones, fit perfectly in, as has happened with both evolution and the big bang. We dont know what happened at the moment of the big bang, but as soon as it started to cool and expand, we can draw a straight line through every single one of our observations and get straight to today.
Abiogenesis states that fully formed life comes from non life, like maggots from old meat. Chemistry details how molecules increased in complexity in natural configurations to build fundamental blocks of life. Your abiogenesis concern is different from the original concept, and also has roots in chemistry, not evolution or most biology. Evolution is how life changes from life to life. Mutation and natrual selection have zero to do with formation of dna, membranes, etc. Thats pure chemistry.
Any dictator can run a command economy. Just think of the kings of middle ages. They didnt regulate the economy (cause there wasnt much economy), but they could. They could claim all the money and property as theirs. They can even claim people or their lives. The whole nation belongs to them. State ownership =/= public ownership in all cases.
If min wage increases consumer spending and business patronage, what business in its right mind would cut back on staff with a rush of new customers at their door? The increase in sales will partially, if not entirely, negate the increased costs. At least in big cities with large numbers of consumers. This is often missed in the over simplified min wage analysis.
What really hurts our economy is big corporations stifling competition, like amazon making knock offs of any successful product on their small.merchant marketplace and then only advertising their product in searchs. Capitalism needs competition, but capitalists fight to destroy the competition. Yes its possible for government to.pass bad laws, but companies left to their own devices will inevitably create monopolies and abuse our systems to their exclusive benefit. The invisible hand is bullshit. Its a lie just like trickle down economics to get you to shoot yourself in the foot in the name of idealism over reality.
Yes, they are certainly command economies.
They dont have public ownership or equality so they still arent socialist. Decisions are made for them, not by them. Therefore not socialist.
I dont understand how conservatives can claim that unions, regulations, etc stiffle the economy. I get how it seems logical on a very basic level, but so does a stationary flat earth, that doesnt make it true. Most other 1st world nations have higher effective taxes, more regulations, more unions.
It was around 70s or 80s that we started demonizing unions and regulations (even the moderate dems like bill clinton). And guess what, thats about the time the rest of the 1st world (with more regulations, more unions, and similar taxes) started to catch up to us.
Conservatives focus to much on the profits of the wealthy thinking it will all trickle down, but it mostly languishes in savings accounts or gets bounced around the stock.market. this is benefitial only to the few directly profiting from it now, and hurts our entire economy in the long term.
Liberitarianism works in a mom and pop.society. but when the company your dealing with is a goliath, its only fair the people shouldnt have to fend for themselves individually. They should have a right to be represented by a union. United we stand, divided we fall.
The profits of individual companies is not a measure of economic health. A strong consumer base is.
I have challenged many to show me these "failed scientific assertions" with a caveat. Show me anything disproven that was attained using the scientific method (whether experimentation, observation, or mathematics). I know things like the aether and abiogenesis were discarded, but those were assumptions from pre science days.
My real conclusion is that god would put his commands into an unadultered state, such as our minds with a conscience, as well as free will to defy our conscience. I believe any semi intelligent being would not leave their instructions in the hands of fallible men for millenia, including during christianity's darkest times of both corrupt church and government (the middle ages). That is a bit of my overall opinion but as i said, ive moved away from arguing against faith and towards simply defending science.
Im not saying your an immature child saying its magic, nor i absolutely dont know that it isnt your answer. It very well.might be. But it also very well.might not. Religion is simply a matter of faith. We wont be building divine detectors any time soon so we will not know if your answer is right or wrong probably ever. The only honest thing i can say about the big bang is "we dont know". Maybe it is a god, but im not gonna assume that blindly. And pascals wager isnt a 50/50, im assuming youve covered that argument with others.
The big bang is a theory in a scientific sense, meaning it definitely happened in some sense, although we openly dont know many details. If you see a balloon being inflated, its logical to assume it was at some point deflated, even if you never saw it. The echo of the big bang that we see uniformly acorss the universe and analysis of the universes baby picture proved the big bang. Experimentation is a major aspect of science, but it isnt the only one. Observation is also commonly used. We cant build a star in a lab, but by comparing the spectrum of the light via microscope we can determine what its made off, how old it is, how far it is, how bright it is, how long it has, and much more. These are facts attained from observation and they are indisputed.
Re: science
Science is not the end of all knowledge, it is the most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively. And i didnt say science is about unproven hypothesis, but *undisproven* hypothesis. Meaning that no matter how many tries it takes amongst the entire international peer review community, noone was able to disprove the hypothesis.
I can logically prove that the earth is stationary. I place a round object on a flat surface and it doesnt move. Stationary earth proven! This should show you that proving something is FAR easier then having something that cannot be disproven. Because with a different experiment, a stationary earth can be very much disproven.
Or for another angle i can argue con on right wing policies like why the invisible hand is nonsense, or how markets can fail us and themselves. Either direction is fine.
I want to convert you if i can. What issue would most convince you that left wing economics, obviously not every policy, work.
Im sure it will take more then 1 debate to do it. I picked the subject but I ask that you pick the first specific topic, and nothing easy for me. Min wage, Gov interference, government ventures. This debate (not us in the comments) was wholly disappointing.
Regarding the rich and homeless. The rich move to big blue cities because thats where the theaters, museums, restaurants and nightclubs are. The poor move to the city because thats where all the jobs are. Both of these independently create demand, and that raises prices. None of this is a "democratic policy". It isnt a policy at all. Its basic, logical, economics. I stated so before, i think you ignored it and restated your opinion.
This is what happens when you successfully run a city, or potentially any region. But success has nuance as well, and dealing with that nuance, like making sure workers can still make it into the city and that working is worth it. You do want to make work worthwhile right? Because hungry people get desperate, and if work isnt feeding them, crime might. I prefer a min wage, but ill take welfare over police state. Welfare is often cheaper. Most of these arent appeals to your humanity but logical solutions to our problems.
Ill have to look into hong kong, but i will say that democracy worked ok 3000 years ago in tiny greek city states, it collapsed when it got any bigger til 2,500 years later. What works at for a town may not work for our sea to sea nation.
Actually we are all taxed the same! Recently looked this up, forgive the excitement over a new argument. Bill gates first 20k gets taxed about as much as a welfare recepient. We all get to keep nearly all our 20k. When he earns his first 100k, he kept as much of that 100k as any accountant or whenever else in the same jurisdiction. Its only those last excessive dollars that lose 35%. And even then, thats before exceptions. So the "progressive" system is pretty damn equal. We all get taxed the same. We just never get as far up the ladder as the successful. Earning more always gets you more money in the end. And the taxes are very proportional.
+you get amazon paying zero (0) !!!! Taxes
And buffet paying less % (the thing your complaining about) then his secretary in taxes!!!
Well its also clear the fbi has labeled black people as a terrorist group. At least by your logic
Also, your links contradict you. Thats just pathetic. Reading helps.
How am i a victim of white violence? What makes you know anything about me?
Is there any topic you wish to debate me on? I find the limited rounds and audience help focus the subject and make reaching a conclusion much more likely.
Im not sure your point about deregulation/regulation.
I do not mean the right selectively deregulates. My concern is that they blindly deregulate. All trump (and others) do is brag how many regulations they eliminate without discussing or caring about which regulations the eliminate or their individual pro/con.
I also dont understand selective regulation. Unless you mean promoting an industry like renewables, just like the gov promoted railroads, motorvehicles, buclear, and many other revolutionary technologies that were too new and risk for private investment but were for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Left wing regulations regulate whole industries and are not company specific so it cannot be selective except in some very nuanced ways. The good thing about government is we can demand investigations, answers, and leadership changes if we do smell something fishy. We have no say in private enterprises.
We have amongst the loosest regulations are the first world, who do we have to be more competitive then? Do you want a race to the bottom so we can start competing with 3rd world nations for shit jobs? I would rather invest in education and start stealing the good jobs from the first world, solidifying ourselves as a superpower for the next century.
The goventment enables the rich to make the most of their resources, i dont see why it cant do the same for the poor. And either way, my reasons for supporting the poor is to maintain a functioning consumer base and a stable economy so that we as a nation can prosper in addition to the bleeding heart idealism.
Im not sure what connection you are trying to make between wealthy and homeless both living in expensive blue cities. Wealthy want to live in places with things to do. Restaurants, clubs, high rises with big views. Therefore they go to cities. The poor want to live in places with available work, which also ends up in cities. Everyone wants to live in cities, which drives up demand, land value, and rent. Rising rents cause more and more poor to become homeless. This is economics, not political policies. The millionaires are not causing the homelessness, the democrats are not causing the homelessness, economics and the so called "invisible hand" is causing the homelessness. And without affordable housing or other assistance programs the workers the city needs will not be able to available anywhere near, and the whole system collapses. Democratic policies like affordable housing and minimum wage ensure that the cities have workers who can afford to live there. Workers the cities badly need. Maybe thats why most cities, especially the successful ones, are deep blue, even in red states. Laissez faire policies would destroy a city.
This presumed connection between the wealthy and homeless that you tried to make, but in all honesty could only say "isnt that suspicious" and couldnt actually connect. Is a dumbing down of reality in order to reach a convenient conclusion.
Im trying to focus the discussion so we can reach a conclusion, so i skipped a few points like guns and neocons that could be whole conversations themselves. Feel free to bring them up later.
Except some of your own sources contradict you. That is some poor game on your part.
276 kidnapped girls in 1 incident. The number of missing children in africa is obviously much larger. Your making dishonest comparisons to defend a bigoted claim.
https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/in-south-africa-kids-go-missing-every-9-hours-16887184
What is this claims of man made ebola and aids? You cry about bad vaccines, but then cry that we lack vaccines. Your just mentioning random conspiracy theories without proof. I really doubt you know what your talking about. All i can say is that i would reevaluate your racist and bigoted views. You failed to respond to the bloody and criminal histories of non white people. Is it because they disprove your racism?
yeah blue states have the most wealthy, the wealthy can choose where they live, and blue states that invest in their people and their areas through taxes are good places to live. Sure they have their ghettos, and red states have their trailer parks, but overall the areas are far more desirable. Thats not a bad thing. Having millionaires doesn't mean you support the policies they believe in. You can live in sunny LA and still send money to the traitor in alabama who wants to lower your federal tax burden. The oligarchy doesn't come from where you live but from how the laws set up, this point is moot.
As is the point of my characterization of the right. I've said it many times (at least once on this site, but i'm rather new), I agree with many right wing complaints, just not right wing solutions. I have nothing against most of the people, until they do/say something dumb but that goes same for the left like Maij23. I do have a problem with the LEADERSHIP, and their counter productive sometimes treasonous solutions. Obviously not every member of the house, but top leadership hell yeah. And it isn't a generalization when I give specific names like McConnell, who I consider to be the most corrupt person in modern american politics. So I reject your claim about me, and demand proof.
I'm glad I got you to agree that democrats are fighting money's influence over our politics while republicans fight to maintain its hold on us. I dont see how all the other issues combined can be more important then that, but why can't republicans find pro life, pro guns leaders who aren't trying to give rich people vip access to them? I hope that in the future I can prove that the democratic platform is fighting to defend the american dream. Do you think those mindless factory jobs could have afforded an american dream without strong worker and union protections from the government? Left wing policies made us a super power, right wing policies are letting the rest of the world catch up.
banning a few extreme forms of guns is not the same as banning guns. Why dont we fill our streets with full automatic, or miniguns? how about some grenade launchers? we can keep escalating this all the way, at some point we have to stop. Where would you stop?
Bernie doesn't dance around it, he openly does the math. Your taxes go up, but your premium goes down. It only makes sense that cutting out the middle man helps costs. Would you feel better if the government just called it a premium instead? its the same money, only you save.
The wealthy did not attain that wealth independent of government, but often with government help, whether enforcement of laws, building of infrastructure, provision of loans, or an educated and healthy workforce. those things dont happen magically. Now that the wealthy have used our society to make their wealth, they wish to cry victim when its time for them to pay their part. You will not become wealthy no matter how much you work if a car accident or an illness (not all of which comes from life choices) bankrupts you. You will not make it if you live in a neighborhood isolated without public transportation or road access. And you will not make it if your illiterate or otherwise undereducated. These things require taxes. Taxes are not a dirty word.
The founding fathers put many limits on speech. Speech is not perfectly free. 1 out of 3 republicans also supported restricting speech in that same survey. Until it is clear what kind of speech they are limiting, this point is meaningless.
Some early vaccines used cells from abortions to grow the weakened virus. There were no fetuses inside of the actual vaccines. Those abortions were from the 1960s, and no aborted tissue has been used for vaccines since. Those 2 fetuses from the 60s have saved millions of lives and counting.
your own snopes link said the story is false.... maybe you need to step up your game.
If someone wanted to control population they would not invent vaccines and let diseases keep killing. your beliefs are illogical.
White people have been just as criminal as every other population. The history of china and japan is just as bloody and abusive to minorities and poor. As for the history of African and other indigenous people... well a lack of record is not proof of a good record. Many African and American tribes were quite war-like, took slaves, and some even cannibalized and sacrificed. Your view of history is bigoted and full of racist beliefs.
And if you dont know anything of Boko Haram, I would recommend looking them up instead of being proud of ignorance. And if your so politically minded, try reading news once in a while, they were all over all the news for a long time after kidnapping and enslaving 276 school girls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibok_schoolgirls_kidnapping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram
"he dialetical materialsim and historical materialsim"
not sure what this means.
as for the rest of your post, yes. Also I believe any form of socialism invented by and in order to support a dictator with zero public input is not a legitimate socialist theory. Its a dictatorship with public ownership of nothing. It is a propaganda lie to placate the public.
Just because you have a command economy doesn't mean the public has any control over it. And if the public does not control the means of production, you dont have socialism. Public ownership is the key defining characteristic of socialism. If that is missing, its not socialism. Everything else is irrelevant.
1 unelected person doesnt mean #liberals anything.
You are generalizing ~100 million people based off what 1 person told you online. Thats their opinion, not all liberals. Generalizing that much is insane.
Fetuses are not in vaccines. Explanation pending.
Boko haram isnt a regular crime, its a belief structure that leads to routine such actions. And they are all black.
Are you upset im applying the same standard to blacks that you apply to white? Lol
You never answered any of my questions:
What percentage of white people are white supremacists? What percentage of a population justifies a generalization? How far should the generalization be applied?
Using your logic cant all people be guilty of all things?
He also gave us the knowledge and ability to refine that medicine. There are no babies in vaccines.
What percentage of white people are white supremacists? What percentage of a population justifies a generalization? How far should the generalization be apploed?
Using your logic cant all people be guilty of all things?
I responded to the apple in 20, which is after 17. You responded to it with ??? And then changed the subject.
In your own words, this is a berry, not the mushroom from earlier. Also you specifically used the term psilocybin, which is the hallucinatory mushroom.
I dont think this conversation is going anywhere. Sorry.
Black people kidnap girls and use them as slaves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibok_schoolgirls_kidnapping
We are talking about apples. Besides their good nutrition, apples dont really have medicinal properties. Can you show me otherwise?
Psilocybin is found mostly in halluncinatory mushrooms. Kt is what causes you to hallucinate. So you are talking abiut hallucinatory mushrooms.
There are medical properties. Which is why we derive medicine from them. This allows us better control over the dosage and easier for people to store/use them.
So your apple argument is completely abandoned?
If we are insisting on missed points, any follow up on that apple? We agree good nutrition can help prevent some chronic illnesses... but it wont do much good by itself once damage was already done.
Also not all illnesses are caused by poor nutrition. What will you give to treat aids or tuberculosis.
I have no comment about your theories regarding hallucinatory mushrooms. I stated medications that came from plants have similar side effects. Other medications have other side effects.
Many medications do come from plants. However they are refined and the dosages can be much higher. This makes them more effective in many situations, and have stronger side effects. For some dosages it would be impossible to eat that many plants.
Many people died from lack of antibiotics. The black death wouldve been completely preventable.
Which part was confusing?
That's right. Good nutrition is the best way to stave off many chronic illnesses. However, it often isnt enough once the illness has gotten bad. Nobody without high blood pressure is on medication for blood pressure to prevent high blood pressure. People on those medications already have pressure high enough to cause a stroke and nutrition alone is too little too late. It is still necessary to keep the condition from getting worse, but the damage has already been done. No apple is going to reverse it, or instantly bring it down to something your heart can handle today.
Your profile says your from france and you have hinted strongly at being not american. Now you say east side of cleveland....
I dont think it would be wise to use yourself as a premise in an online debate, you will have to disclose an uncomfortable amount of information. Without this information however, your personal circumstances are unproveable, and thus irrelevant. Chock it up to luck. If this seems unfair, atleast be thankful you arent part of the majority born to a 3rd world or autocratic nation. :D
I dont think his intent was to outrage liberals with this post, although that may very well happen. Maybe other posts, but the trolling on this post seems targeted. I was referring mostly to the person behind those words, and his intent.
And i believe i showed this outrage by calling him out. Triggered isnt a specifically defined word. I find myself often triggered by ignorance or stupidity, but not in an outrage kinda way. Not every form of action is outrage or butthurtedness.
The point was he seemed intent on trying to trigger a maximum number of conservatives, regardless of whether or not it was effective. And regardless of how hard he had to twist his words into something both completely dishonest and wrong. So the question is: why?
Do you got out of your way to phrase your title in the most incorrect way in order to trigger a maximum number of conservatived? I know you clarified in your previous debate that you dont mean all white people... but you could have made that clear in your title. Instead you clearly said all white people as you said it again now and that is blatantly wrong.
Your essentially using the same stupid tactics as conservatives when they blame all muslims for every islamic act of terrorism. You are wrong.
you know i didn't read the 500 page bill and neither did you. Half our representatives probably didnt read it either. Its details arent the point. Congress is supposed to discuss and negotiate the fine point. not bar it from ever even getting 1 vote. Other bills will come, from the left. And the right wing leadership will do all they can to stop it. Can you show me any bill from the right that does anything to address this probably? I suspect that I can find some that directly support the problem coming from the right. They are creating an oligarchy. They are stealing this nation from the people. This is treason. How is this not priority #1!?
I think special interest groups are ruining the discourse of every single issue and creating the hyperpartisan state we are in. I think it is the primary problem in this country. That being said, democrats arent coming for your guns, slippery slopes arent healthy. They aren't coming for your income... unless you are incredibly wealthy and earned it using the many institutions and infrastructure of this nation, or just were born into it. And democrats aren't coming for your speech. political correctness is a social movement, not a legal one. it is speech. These are all caricatures of what the left actually stands for. Its like getting your us news from chinese newspapers... really?
what ailment do apples treat?
If you want a medicinal mushroom, eat maitake. Its the healthiest one. It is expensive tho.
Those mushrooms help prevent illness due to being excellent sources of nutrition. Are you sick? are you using them as medicine? or are you just enjoying a meal?
Not every food has medicinal properties, and not every medicinal herb is food. Medicinal herbs have side effects. I linked to my source, your just ranting in response.
you can store *SOME* of these herbs.... what about all the others? i guess you already admitted you cant by using the word some. I guess people with those illnesses can just go die.
yes, republicans who supported bigger government, free land giveaways, and heavy industrial interference. with a constituency of urban northerners....
no, the whole past republicans/democrats part was brought up by someone else, I'm simply showing how absurd it is.