Debate Article: An Odd Debate I had with a Friend on Msn (Part 1)

9

An Odd Debate I had with a Friend on Msn (Part 1)

posted by ShadowFlame

If u don't like debates that go nowhere, then u might not be so interested in this...

My friend, an evolutionist, and I, a Christian, always love to spend a few moments debating with each other about evolution, the "Big Bang" theory, and religion (mostly God).

November 7, 2008, he and I started at it again on Msn. He actually put my skills to the test, as neither of us have had no high school of college education on religion (so far), but I have gone to Church weekly, and will hopefully continue doing so. My friend, is frankly just extremely smart (I honestly can't elaborate on that. He's not just smart, he's extremely gifted), and he comes from a family of evolution-refuters.

We were having a blast trying to get our points across, and if that didn't work, WE USED badges LOCK every now and then. It was about half an uur later when I had to leave, and not wanting to stop the debate, I decided to save the conversation, which I am going to toon u right now. Please note that I have done a spelling check and such, but I did not change anything up to make me look better of meer right, etc... Also note, that I am going to use my Fanpop name, and his nickname - Alien (he takes no offense of this nickname).

Alien says:
Like my personal message? u can't beat that! (His personal message was - If everything must come to an end then does that mean the end is a new beginning?)

ShadowFlame says:
Lol, but us humans can’t grasp what 'nothing' is. It's indefinable in terms of our senses. If there IS an end, and that end is nothing, we wouldn't/ won’t understand. (I go and make a personal message) - Ha, now look at my personal message! (It read - No human can grasp the concept of nothingness. Between our minds and senses, we can't experience it of explain it in anyway.)

Alien says:
True, but everything that ends exists termination is merely a way to clean the slate, to start fresh. And if there was nothing, and something were to end, we would no longer be human, would we? (He reads my personal message) - Awesome message. Hahah, beat that! (he’s referring to what he said, not his, of my, personal message).

ShadowFlame says:
No, which proves afterlife. If the universe (as we know it) went into a state of nothingness (clean slate as u would say), then our "being" could no longer be. How would we continue? There can't not be nothing at all.

The Big Bang - A theory to explain how our universe began

Alien says:
Yes, but a clean slate is how we start. Everything must start in some way. How was our universe formed in your belief god? My belief - the big bang, But, both instances start from nothing.

ShadowFlame says:
Nothing can’t create something, so prove your theory now.

Alien says:
Then where did our universe start from?

ShadowFlame says:
I’m asking you. Don’t turn this on me, I want u to prove your theory first!

Alien says:
Ok then, nothing is a state of pause of meer like a stage. As u can see, life is in stages. And the universe can be considered life.

ShadowFlame says:
How did life come to be? How did it get into that state?

Alien says:
From nothing the first stage, the death of another universe.

ShadowFlame says:
Impossible. How could a state of being come from nothing? Nothing has no potential. So where did that universe come from?

Alien says:
Hmm, if u put things that way, where did the first thing come from? Nothing is nothing, yet everything.

ShadowFlame says:
No…

Alien says:
It has no potential, yet all the potential possible.

ShadowFlame says:
Impossible. That evades the statement, NOTHING CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING. Things don't just spring out of nowhere, literally.

Alien says:
Then where does the beginning come from? (The first beginning)

ShadowFlame says:
So, u admit your theory is bust, because u can't explain it, and your turning the vraag on me? Ok.

Alien says:
Let me ask u something - if nothing is nothing, how did we come to understand its concept? Nothing does exist, and things come from nothing. A cycle has to start from somewhere.

ShadowFlame says:
We haven't. Nothing cannot be seen, heard, tasted (lol), touched, of smelled (lol).

Alien says:
True, but nothing exists. It has to exist.

ShadowFlame says:
BUT, that cycle has to have come from somewhere! A cycle doesn't just appear!

Alien says:
But it could - We are humans, we have logics, but some things in this world can't be based on logics. That’s already been proven.

ShadowFlame says:
EXACTLY! THAT’S WHAT BELIEF IS! … Duh...

Alien says:
Yeah, then nothing is possible. It’s a belief. And if not nothing, where else does a beginning happen?

ShadowFlame says:
Not a theory of fact, a belief. NOTHING MORE.

Alien says:
Does something have to happen from something? And if it does, where was that first something created from?

ShadowFlame says:
God, God = belief - perfect LOGIC. God isn’t something that was, of will be. He's something that IS.

God - The creator of our universe (a biased opinion)

Alien says:
Then, where did he come from?

ShadowFlame says:
God isn’t something that was.

Alien says:
Everything starts from something. Even god - He was created based on our BELIEFS.

ShadowFlame says:
NO!

Alien says:
Do animals worship God? Do plants worship God? - no they don't. No, I didn't think so.

ShadowFlame says:
God was NOT created door our beliefs! The Bible states only human life is sacred, because we were made in the image of Him.

Alien says:
Ok then, where did we begin? Did he just plop us in the middle of the earth? – No, I don't think so.

ShadowFlame says:
Yes, but first he created the Earth (in seven days). At this point, I don’t care what u THINK, I want to hear what u KNOW.

Alien says:
Hmm, that contradicts the big bang theory! If God is something that is, then how can there be something that WAS if God has been around since the beginning. How did he get there?

ShadowFlame says:
There is no beginning of God. He's something that IS, not was. He's always "just been there" (for lack of better terms).

Alien says:
But, that is not possible according to humans, and nothing is too. So, nothing had to have created something. What was before God then?

ShadowFlame says:
"-according to humans" -- u see why that’s wrong, right?
God was before nothing. In fact, there could have NOT been nothing, for god has always been there.

Alien says:
But, God is something, a so called superior being, but still something. If God IS, then that’s something, including nothing, because nothing according to u is SOMETHING that cannot be. But, if nothing is something, surely it an create.

ShadowFlame says:
WHAT! Something can't be nothing, for it IS something. u can have a hat appear out of air (and air is something too!). What you've zei makes absolutely no sense. Nothing isn't something - it's only a word.

Alien says:
I'm not saying to make a hat appear out of nothing, nothing is a stage. It has to be the beginning of all beginnings, for if it weren't, and if according to some people, God doesn’t exist, then where else can something come from? A beginning has to come from something, and nothing can be something. Something according to us again cannot be.

ShadowFlame says:
"-according to some people god doesn't exist then where else can something come from" -- Honestly Alien, that's why there has to be a God. It's logical, not just theoretical.

Alien says:
Then, where did that God come from?

ShadowFlame says:
I’ve already answered that - human minds can’t grasp that concept, so they made "theories" to help themselves understand.

Alien says:
Hmm, then if humans are capable of inventing mathematics, logics, theories and limits, why can't we grasp that concept? And believe it of not god is bound in some ways door our laws as well.

ShadowFlame says:
"-and believe it of not god is bound in some ways door our laws as well" -- I am honestly going to try to forget u zei that.

"-if humans are capable of inventing mathematics, logics, theories, and limits, why can't we grasp that concept?" -- Why should we be able to? Why can't you? I’m not god, so why are u asking me a vraag only god knows?

Alien says:
God is bound door our laws. If he created us, then he is bound to our rules as well. For example: The person who invented the “shirt” (the modern shirt), he of she wore them too, and he of she was then bound door the rest of the world and their so called rules of fashion.

ShadowFlame says:
I haven't really seen a picture of god in a tie-dye shirt, have you? (I know you’re using a overhemd, shirt as an example, but because your acknowledging god created people, etc, [not saying u believe in him, but this is the hypothetical scenario going round] then why would u use a t-shirt?)

Alien says:
Because a t-shirt is an easy example. The person who invented it was called genius. After the t overhemd, shirt was invented people started thinking. Like different accessories of fashion. And guess what? Then different t overhemd, shirt designs were created; brand names, plaid, stripes, skulls, etc.

ShadowFlame says:
Ok, I’m not sure where your getting at.

Alien says:
Well, they guy who invented the t overhemd, shirt probably started with something simple, but as the whole world started modifying that persons invention. He was forced to adapt to it as well.

ShadowFlame says:
Ok, I still don’t understand to be honest.

Alien says:
Ok, like I said, the guy who invented the t-shirt first started with something very simple and that revolutionized the world.

ShadowFlame says:
And your point about this "revolution"?

Alien says:
It changed the world - it was a hit. But then, people started thinking;what about multi colours? What about different designs stripes plaid? And then a whole bunch of brand names popped up and so on. So, as u can see, today the t overhemd, shirt has many different designs. And the guy who invented them while he was still alive had to adapt.

ShadowFlame says:
Yeah, but "shirts" go WAY back, before "brand names" of colours.

Alien says:
But, if u look at shirts 50 years apart - even back then - they change a lot.

ShadowFlame says:
That’s...nice...I still don’t see where you’re going with this.

Alien says:
The guy who first invented them was forced to adapt to the new updates.

ShadowFlame says:
Great. Now, what does that have to do with god being "limited" to our "laws"?

Alien says:
Well, we created math, logics, and all that. Here’s an example of a math vraag even Einstein can' solve -- x+y=3 - what is x and y? They could be anything, as long as they add up to 3.

ShadowFlame says:
Ok…

Alien says:
So, which one is it? u can't know – there’s an infinite number of possibilities.

ShadowFlame says:
I can know the possibilities.

Alien says:
No, u can't - infinite is something endless.

ShadowFlame says:
Ooo right...cool! And?

Alien says:
If u can't know, then how can God? He cannot solve it - the answer can be anything, and how can God solve something from anything.

ShadowFlame says:
God is infinity. He created the letters x, y, the number 3, and the possibilities, because god created everything.

Alien says:
Even nothing? Hahaha, not possible! Your god is only a theory.

ShadowFlame says:
Nope.

Alien says:
All of your stories in the bible - can u prove them?

ShadowFlame says:
As zei before (somewhere in that chaos) I proved to u he had to be real...

Alien says:
God is a theory.

ShadowFlame says:
Ok, don’t say anything - go read our conversation again!

Alien says:
Oh yeah, but God is just belief. We can't justify if He’s real of not. If God talked to Moses, why didn't he talk to us?

ShadowFlame says:
When people pray, it’s a way of communication. He does talk to people, just not in the way your thinking.

A way of communication with God

Alien says:
Haha, right…and what’s with this sin nonsense. How can good people, like u and me, possible sin? Besides, any type of crime, adultery, and so on - How can we sin?

ShadowFlame says:
Do u lie? Yes, u do. Even if u were PERFECT in every way - no lies, no lust, no greed, no vengeance, no bad thought, you'd still be born with sin in you. (Adam and Eve)

Alien says:
So, your so called ‘God’ says we sin because of those two? Ha! If He was so perfect why does he think like that?

ShadowFlame says:
Like what?

Alien says:
That we sin.

ShadowFlame says:
Keep that thought in Mind! I've got to go!

There u have it! A senseless debate that went almost no where. Neither of us had help of any sort - no parents, no boeken with us, no Internet search. Hope u enjoyed this rather pointless article!

And if you're wondering, this is labeled "Part 1", because I might make another of these if me and my friend have another chat.

lovedeath26, Cladra and 7 others like this

12 more comments

loading additional comments...

harold OK, just to help with debate: the existence of evidence NEVER means that any particular explanation for the evidence is fact, unless there is no other explanation (a situation which doesn't occur outside of mathematics). To say otherwise is to suggest that the ends [u]define[/u] the means. That's even worse than asserting that science proves something. It would be like a lawyer in court saying "The corpse there means that the defendant committed the murder!" The suspect may have committed a murder or not, but all you can tell from the existence of the corpse is...that there's a corpse. Edit: Just to be clear: no one is doubting that there's a corpse, or the existence of the gas in your example, or the existence of background radiation (from your earlier argument). They exist. But it can't be said that the existence of these things proves anything. To put what I said in another way: there is no positive proof in science. That is, you can never say to have proved that something [u]is[/u], in science. You can sometimes say what it is not, however, based upon experimental observation.

amazondebs yes you can we can prove humans inhale more oxygen when they inhale and change it in to carbon dioxide when they exhale because we cane measure it, we know that to be fact and proven

coolguy111606 Yeah, but scientists actually observe that happening, they can't observe how the earth was created, b/c they weren't there.

amazondebs yes but it's like carbon dating we can say how old something is because we can measure the radioactive decay scientists weren't there from the start but they can say how old something is scientists weren't there at the big bang but again because of radiation we are able to measure and describe what happened at the big bang i'm not saying this proves the bible wrong but it does show the big banged happened, I am willing to accept explanation of the story of adam and eve being a metaphor but i think this shows the bible shouldn't be taken completly literally all the time as a complete life guide.....but this is off topic to the debate just saying

coolguy111606 Well, what if some extordinary event happened between the time of creation and now that increased the amount of radiation on the thingy-majig, and if analyzed would show not to be the date that it was originally made. Or what if it has a rapid way of growing in the beginning of it's state, then settles out into a very slow method of growing when it reaches a certain stage. Sort've like coral reefs, they grow rapidly the first few years under water, but after about 5 years, they go into a very slow steady state of growing. If scientists measured this growth say a centimeter a year, and the reef is 5 meter, then this 5 year old reef could be determined to be 500 years old (hopefully math is right). (actual measure of coral reef used as an example)

amazondebs erm.......i'm not sure what you mean or what your getting at

coolguy111606 Can't trust that the radiation was consistent, and therefore could mess up there way of measuring it. -very summed up

amazondebs well i only have a basic grasp of science but to my understanding they have checked and remeasured this many times as hey do with anything in science do you believe there is proof to the bible? shadowflame seems to do although he has not yet stated it (i am hoping he does because i am sincerly intrigued) and i was wondering if you do

coolguy111606 Yes, I do believe there is proof to the Bible. Prophecies: There were many prophecies made of Jesus' life in the old testament by many prophets. Jesus fulfilled them all to the point, even ones out of his control if He was human, like his clothes be gambled for, and no bones be broken. Not only that, but the Historical events of the Bible are true too, there actually was a guy named Jesus, Paul, Nebuchanezzar (sp)... and Israel actually did become a nation. One of the most amazing prophecies that happened was that the Bible says that the nation of Israel will be restored in ONE day, and on one day, the UN came together, decided the Jews have been through a lot, and deserve a land of their own, so in one day, the nation of Israel was restored. I do believe the Bible is true, and that there are proofs, this is all that I can think of right now, (not to mention I have to go eat and watch family movie), but hopefully shows you some of the proofs of the Bible.

amazondebs ahhhh but we can not prove there actually was a guy named jesus to say he cause such a uproar it is strange there are no account by the many historians around at the time, but there is also other documents to say he did exist so we can't prove that either way since the new testament was written after jesus (i am right in this, yes? please correct me if i wrong because my source (another fanpopper) didn't site their source lol) you could say some of the prophecies maybe altered, interpreted the way they wanted to interprete them ect i do not believe you can say israel has been restored consideriing the conflict there, it is certainly not a land of "milk and honey" literally or metaphorically but since that is a issue of time, it could become one, again we can not say either way I was thinking along the lines of solid historical proof, the example i can think of wasn't noah arc found? while not physically able to be equipped for those amount of animals, it is of the right period and to a great size and geographically correct (again someone correct me if i am wrong, i am trying to remeber info from a documentary) so while not physically possible i think that's where the leap of faith comes in but anyways that's the sort of solid evidence i was looking for strange you should mention the propheicies though because that video i linked on our other on going debate mentions that as evidense against the bible as i have done anyways enjoy your tea and movie :D

coolguy111606 Yes, all New Testament books were written after Jesus, but keep in mind, that from years 1-29 of his life, He didn't do any miracles, and it wasn't until the age of 30 did He start doing miracles, until He died at age 33. So that would mean that they only had 3 years to write everything as they happened. EDIT (which they didn't) Also 2/4 of the gospel writers followed Jesus, and most likely they didn't have the time to write, as they traveled. (have you ever tried writing and walking at the same time). But every writer got their info from Primary sources, like Mary (Jesus' mother), followers... Well for more Proof of the Bible, I typed in proof Bible in Google search, and the link below appeared, and although i haven't read it all yet, the first few paragraphs look good. Enjoy!? http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

harold Just to go back to the science thing (and I know this is a digression, and probably flogging a dead horse): the examples you cite are not scientific proof. You may think of them as scientific proof, but they are, at most, scientific laws. Laws are not proof. Science [i]always[/i] leaves the possibility that laws or theories are incorrect. It wouldn't be science otherwise. The composition of the air that someone breathes in and out is not proof, it's evidence. One can't say that [i]science[/i] proves that "humans inhale more oxygen when they inhale and change it in to carbon dioxide when they exhale". Instead, one can say that every result of such experiments has been the same, and that those data indicate that it's true. Put another way, it seems like you want to say that consistently repeatable experimental results (the data or facts) equal [u]proof[/u] (correct me if I misunderstood). It may be proof enough for you and me - I certainly believe that I exhale more nitrogen than I inhale - but science does not call it a proof, because [u]proofs don't exist in science[/u]. It's a bit like saying "In psychology there's a concept of a group of minds functioning as one. In Spanish it's called a [i]gestalt[/i]". People do call such a thing a gestalt, but you can't say that [i]Spanish[/i] calls it that: it's a German word. In much the same way, it can't be correctly said that science proves anything. Science and proof are mutually conceptually exclusive. A correct way to say what I think you're getting at is "The vast amount of scientific data support X" or "The collected scientific experimental data have convinced me that X". I'm really not trying to pick on you in particular. It's just a bit of sloppy argumentation that I'll admit drives me crazy. Otherwise, I think your argument is sound, but making a statement like "science proves it" throws the credibility of the rest of the arguments into question when they shouldn't be. It's as if, in the middle of a set of well-formed arguments, the debater would say "Albert Einstein was best known as a painter." Maybe Einstein painted quite well - honestly I have no idea - but the statement is clearly not true, in such a way that it makes one wonder "If the debater makes such a basic error, how good is the rest of it?" It's not fair to you. Much like judging George W. Bush on his mispronunciation of "nuclear" is not fair to him, but everybody still does it. "Nukular" he says, and his audience thinks "Wow, should we really trust this guy to handle energy policy?"

SG1-090 I liked this article and i agree with Alien. Because everything we have ever know has a beginning middle and end we can't understand something that doesn't. Existence, time.....i like the theory that everything is infinite.

jjad_2006 God is hard for people to grasp, even christians, because we live under the natural laws of this Earth. But God doesn't fit into those laws, God is not confined by time He created time. Debs, God does love everyone, however there are rules, not for the fun of it either. God speaks to some people because they've worked through their faith into a place that is close to him. That's why we have laws against sin and everything b/c God's aim is to have a personal relationship with us all, and that's impossible without leading a life of belief and without sin. everyone sins, that's why jesus paid our way into redemption, to help us to move closer to God, form a close relationship and understand the favor and amazing love that is in the kingdom of God. God created mankind because he wanted a creation that was capable of love on the basis of freewill. you can choose to accept God or not, He's still going to love you, it's your love or unacceptance of him that will decide your fate. As far as the big bang theory goes, whethe ror not it happened i don't know, but if it did it didn't happen the way scientists believe. if so, then why are all the planets made up of completely different elements? even the moon, which supposedly came from the earth after a violent collision has NO ALIKE elements as the earth. obviously the universe took an intelligence and a will to create.

jjad_2006 as far as prrof for the Bible goes, let me know specifically what you think is incorrect. just for one example a good book is Israel in Egypt by James Hoffmeier which supports, by means of historical texts and archeological authenticity, the exodus.

amazondebs harold you could then say you can prove nothing not even maths because nothing has real meaning, if shadowflame can make a claim to a monopoly of truth then i am taking a claim to stretching the meaning of proof, i find it a bit moot jjad, god loves me but he's going to send me to hell and wants me to worship him with blind faith?ahem sorry off topic you can say god can create rules ect ect but there must be a start to him creating them rules......possibly not a end if he is eternal but there must be a start

hellgirl223 Woah Great debate. I think your 'Alien' friend is incredibly smart, and now coolguy and debs are debating =D

jjad_2006 right, the start was the creation. these rules were laid out then at the very foundation of mankind. God created mankind in his likeness, as a creature capable of love and worship, that is our purpose. These rules are made to protect us and guide us into becoming closer to God so that we can get as close as possible to him, to recieve all that God has to give us. Disbelief and sin send you to Hell, since we all sin, it's pretty much a given that somewhere in your life it's going to happen, Jesus died for redemption so that sin wouldn't have victory i nthe end. God loves this world so much that he put forth the effort to save us all, even though he already gave us the guidelines to stay out of trouble to begin with. I think there's a common misconception here when it comes to God, we keep trying to put the restraints of science on God. Gos created these things he is not subject to them. God doesn't have to come from somewhere, ' somewhere' is a concept he created. As far as blind faith goes, you have to start somewhere. but i honestly believe, and know, that if your heart is true and you seek out God He will be there, and even though our minds never seem to fully understand everything, when you encounter God there is no doubt, He's there.

jjad_2006 btw i have a bad habit of hitting the 's' key instead of the 'd' key, and one got away from me in proofreading, oops sorry.

amazondebs you stay everything you say as thought it is fact.....and yet you have no evidense of this....none at all, to me that's just bewildering, yet i realise the concept of faith is to not have hard evidense but surly you need something to go on as you so rightly said you have to start somewhere... god did not create the concept of time everything has to have a begining a startof a process that is a law,, you can say god can bend laws but god had to start from somewhere, you can say it's a hard concept to get our heads around but that because there is no getting around it how do you even know that god created all that anyways, where in the bible does it say that? I am honestly asking because my knowledge of the bible is sketchy at best but I have never heard god or jesus saying he created science or the conept of science, how do you know there is a god above the god you worship? so does god or jesus actually say everything you have said above or are these just conceptions by man to explain what they can not? I don't see what god and the theory of the big bang can't co-exist together, I know this doesn't fit in to your christian faith and you clearly are very devout so i just hope you look in to theory and the evidense....or proof (sorry harold i still see it as that) of the theory, I know many religious people who have believe in god and the big bang, that god created it

jjad_2006 I never said I didn't believe in 'the big bang,' but i said that if that is how it happened that it was an act of God and clearly suggests that it was part of an intelligent plan by God, (see above post where i talk about the elements and what not that make up the planets)God is above science, God created time and everytihng that we know of and still more..." In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." in the beginning pertains to time as we know it, time started when God created it. it started when there was something to keep time for. Also, this verse tells us that God created the universe, "heavens" this word pertains to the universe and not the place. I know there is no god other than my God, only things/idols/etc. that people worship and treat as gods. But my God is the one true God, the only God "Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else" "Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else." as far as faith goes, it's a choice, God gave us free will and although He loves you and always will He would never make you love Him back.

amazondebs but surly you can't believe the big bange theory if your christian, as you believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, no? "god created time" you can't create time, there would have been time before, nothing can possibly have actions with out, so god starting to create is a moment in time, how god himself was created is a moment in time.........I wonder what god did before earth......sorry off topic "Also, this verse tells us that God created the universe, "heavens" this word pertains to the universe and not the place" but how do you know this? maybe they did just mean heaven the place....also who said that? since it is not in first person, i presume it is again man saying that god created everything there ever was....not god him/her/itself was my point

harold Oh, come now! Science and maths are not at all the same thing. Science is the observation of phenomena and the creation of hypotheses to explain the observations. Mathematics are a conceptual human creation, much like logic and language. So these things can be said to be true because they are defined as true within themselves, and are not reliant on any external reality: * 2 + 2 = 4 * A = B, thus if B = C then A = C * "dog: canid ; especially : a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the gray wolf b: a male dog ; also : a male usually carnivorous mammal" But maybe I should ask you directly: are you really trying to argue that there is proof in science? Or are you saying that established theories based on observed phenomena should be treated as fact until contradictory evidence appears? All I've been trying to say is that those are two very different things. Maybe we should take this up in a different place? When I first posted, I thought I was simply pointing out what might even have been a typo, no big deal, since "everybody knows there's no proof in science" (my thinking). But it's going around and around, on the side of this other discussion. Should we start a separate thread, something like "Does science include proof?" Let me know.

jjad_2006 obviously we're not going to agree on the whole time issue. I don't know how God created the earth I just believe he did, big bang or not. but like I said its not that i don't believe the big bang impossible, just that it was done by God and in a planned out way, and if God's word says 7 days then it was seven days, not saying you have to believe that just that I do. I also believe the Bible when it says that it's God's word as given to the people who wrote it down. as far as the heavens goes, its a common enough word used pertaining to the stuff that is beyond the earth, in its original language "The word used for 'heaven' is the Hebrew word 'shamayim' which is defined by Strong's Concordance as being 'from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve)" In other words, this is talking about the empty space in the universe, which, according to science, came to exist when the universe began to exist." this was found at http://www.kingdavid8.com/CreatedUniverse.html, altohugh i haven't had enough time to read all of this it actually may answer alot of your questions. it looks really good.

Mila19990907 This is a totally great article. I really like it

10

What did Johnny learn at school today?

added by Sappp

Source: Unknown

2

Reefer Madness the Movie Musical - "Tell 'Em The Truth" (Reprise)

added by Cinders

"When danger's near, exploit their fear." Debate relevance: Should marijuana be legalized? Why is marijuana illegal, when liquor and cigarettes aren't?

video

politics

marijuana

ending

legalization

the truth

reefer madness the movie musical

3

Janeane Garofalo vs. Brian Kilmeade

added by Jarhead

A debate live on vos, fox and Friends. From February 2003, about a maand before the Iraq War began and just after the worldwide protests of the impending U.S.-led invasion.

video

vos, fox

live

debate

janeane garofalo

vos, fox and vrienden

brian kilmeade

2

Right Wing Stuff

added by KarbonKopy

Source: rightwingstuff.com

38

pro choice

added by amazondebs

Source: reality check/anna clark

Why Do Women Abort? - How To Prevent Abortions door Looking At Why They Happen

posted by Cinders

There has been a lot of discussion around the topic of abortion lately, partly influenced door recent political gaffes door republican senators concerning the concept of abortion in cases of rape.

Let me just say that I am pro-choice. I am not pro-choice because I hate babies of children, of because I believe a fetus isn't a living thing. Maybe that makes me worse, because I love children. I love children so much, I invested in them door choosing a career in nurturing them and their minds and helping them grow. I recognize that even if we quibble about the specific definition of where life begins,...

3

December Eminent Domain debate: CON - Round 1.

posted by Sappp

Should projects involving eminent domain require citizen approval?

No, projects involving eminent domain should NOT require citizen approval.

I think that when u let people have input in cases where eminent domain is being used, u undermine the use of eminent domain.
Eminent domain should only be used when it benefits the public good. Undermining that rule would damage the public good. Like stated before, people hardly think about the public good when it is about their own stuff.

People are often emotional in these cases: they want to keep their property even though they get a just compensation....

10

The Irony of American Political Parties

posted by Cinders

This artikel is, perhaps, mislabled, as there are several ironies concerning the American political party system. But I want to focus on a major one, an amusing one, really, and that is the difference between a party's economic politics and its social politics.

When asked what the main difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is, the answer that comes is simple enough. The democrats believe in big government, and the republicans believe in small governent. That is to say, democrats would want the government taking care of u at all times whereas the republicans would...

19

Don't get me wrong I like Obama but...

posted by sophieDP

Part of me feels that America didn't vote for Barack Obama, not for his ideas nor his charisma. When America voted Obama, they were above all voting democrat due to the current economical situation in the US.
Although the enquêtes told us that Obama was in the lead, one might have still predicted Mccain as the final outcome.
As previously an African American president was unheard of. Even his predicted outcome in the enquêtes failed to convince me, believing that Obama like so many other black political figures in America would suffer the 'bradley effect'.
This would lead many to the conclusion that...

6

Calvin on Winning Arguments

added by kateliness2

Source: MarcellosSendos

2

Answers?

added by Roxas1314

Source: Me

1

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the Trump tax returns

added by ThePrincesTale

Brexit Costs Nearly Match UK's Total EU Contributions from 1973 - 2020

added by ThePrincesTale

2

I was gonna vote Democrat but...

added by ThePrincesTale

1

Study: Facts Communicated In Meme Format Much meer Likely To Be True

added by DarkSarcasm

Source: The Babylon Bee

Brexit as seen on the continent

added by ThePrincesTale

Source: Jürgen Tomicek

Stossel: Betsy DeVos Responds to Her Critics

added by DarkSarcasm

Trump's secretary of education says she's "undeterred." John Stossel interviews Betsy DeVos for Reason, May 2018.

video

debate

issues

school

education

charter

public

secretary of education

betsy devos

john stossel

interview

reason

2018

Stossel: Eminent Domain/Little roze House

added by DarkSarcasm

Susette Kelo bought a run-down home. She fixed it up and painted it pink. Then the government came and took it. Stossel on eminent domain and the movie Little roze House.

video

debate

issues

politics

government

eminent domain

little roze house

susette kelo

kelo v. city of new london

john stossel

reason

april 2018

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

added by DarkSarcasm

Penn & Teller explain the 2nd Amendment.

video

debate

issues

seconde amendment

2nd amendment

gun control

right to beer arms

militia

penn & teller

1

Hello american friends, pls fix your gov, k thanks

added by ThePrincesTale