Search is not available for this dataset
Unnamed: 0
int64 0
38.3k
| id
int64 8
10k
| q
stringlengths 5
13k
| r
stringlengths 3
35.3k
| s
stringclasses 2
values | q'
stringlengths 3
2.67k
| r'
stringlengths 3
6.78k
| Unnamed: 6
float64 | total no.: 7987
float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
517
| 151
|
"Nothing at all . You think open carrying of loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA ?"
|
"Why not ? You said yourself kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` . It is alread the law in many states ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You think open carrying of loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA"
|
"You said yourself kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` It is alread the law in many states"
| null | null |
512
| 151
|
"Nothing at all . You think open carrying of loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA ?"
|
"Why not ? You said yourself kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` . It is alread the law in many states ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"fashionable CA"
|
"kalifornia `` trend setter"
| null | null |
513
| 151
|
"Nothing at all . You think open carrying of loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA ?"
|
"Why not ? You said yourself kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` . It is alread the law in many states ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA ?"
|
"kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` . It is alread the law in many states ."
| null | null |
514
| 151
|
"Nothing at all . You think open carrying of loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA ?"
|
"Why not ? You said yourself kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` . It is alread the law in many states ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"carrying of loaded handguns in public will become fashionable in CA ?"
|
"Why not ? You said yourself kalifornia was a `` trend setter `` . It is alread the law in many states ."
| null | null |
519
| 152
|
"This post contains a perfectly simple explanation of why ToE is a sham along with a challenge to any Darwinist to prove me wrong . ToE is constructed on a fraud premise . This premise says that the fundamental unit of evolution is the gene . Whenever an evolutionist talks about  “ evolution ” he ’ s not talking about mere phenotypic change – he ’ s talking about changes in genes . To a Darwinist , just because an animal changes phentoypically , or even if he passes these changes down to progeny does not mean that  “ evolution ” has occurred . A fish could morph into a human , but if there are no changes in genes then this would not be considered `` evolution. `` The only way evolution can happen , by their own definition , is if there is a change in genetics . This premise , I suggest is a complete and total fraud ... and I will explain why now : Let ’ s take humans and dogs , for example . When compared side-by-side , sure enough , humans may have an assortment of genes that dogs do not – and possibly the other way around . But just because humans may have certain genes that dogs do n't , does not mean that these genes cause the difference between humans and dogs . Of course , there are no  “ dog genes ” or  “ human genes. ” But likewise there are no  “ tongue genes ,  ”  “ tail genes ” or  “ toenail genes. ” Parts are not translated genes . Thus , the assertion that new genes got created or that individual genes mutated over time to chnage one kind of animal into another is blatantly false and physically impossible . But it 's worse than that . As I said before , humans have a whole slew of genes – theoretically , at least -- that dogs ( or other animals ) don ’ t have . But evolutionists still contend that these genetic differences cause the difference between the organisms ! That ’ s why they analyze DNA with such scrutiny ! But did it ever dawn on them that studying genetics is a compete waste of time because of the real possibility that each dog or each human has the genes they have because of what they are ? Scientists have been telling us for decades that who or what we are is determined by what genes we have ... But they ’ ve got it backwards ! Instead , we have the genes we have because of who we are . A dog is n't a dog because he barks ; a dog barks because of what he is . Same with genes . This , of course , spells destructin to ToE because it means genetic evolution is a fraud . Evolution , thus , should not be a theory based on changes in genes , but a theory based on changes in traits . But scientists continue to mess around with genes and try to make the body do weird things by mutating them . They simply won ’ t give up because they ’ ve seen correlations between gene activity and various physiological responses . But here ’ s where they ’ re screwing everything up : When you were a kid did you ever stand on your head ? If so , did your face ever get red if you stayed upside down for a period of time ? If so , do you admit that it was the act of being upside down that caused the blood to rush to your head ? Or , do you have the audacity to claim that you were upside down because your face was red ? That ’ s excactly what science is doing with genetics : they ’ ve got the audacity to claim that changes in genes ( the red face ) is causing the organsim to change physiologically ( go upside down . ) In reality , what ’ s happening is the organism is experiencing a new environment ( turning upside down ) and then the genes are responding in kind ( turning red ) . The only way you can prove this logic wrong is to do one of two things : 1 ) show me conclusively that mutations happen completely randomly and unoriented to environmental pressures . 2 ) show me that the same environmental pressures on genes will not produce the exact same physiological effects over and over and over . So there it is . Go for it ."
|
"So what this guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"because it means genetic evolution is a fraud"
|
"he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
| null | null |
522
| 152
|
"This post contains a perfectly simple explanation of why ToE is a sham along with a challenge to any Darwinist to prove me wrong . ToE is constructed on a fraud premise . This premise says that the fundamental unit of evolution is the gene . Whenever an evolutionist talks about  “ evolution ” he ’ s not talking about mere phenotypic change – he ’ s talking about changes in genes . To a Darwinist , just because an animal changes phentoypically , or even if he passes these changes down to progeny does not mean that  “ evolution ” has occurred . A fish could morph into a human , but if there are no changes in genes then this would not be considered `` evolution. `` The only way evolution can happen , by their own definition , is if there is a change in genetics . This premise , I suggest is a complete and total fraud ... and I will explain why now : Let ’ s take humans and dogs , for example . When compared side-by-side , sure enough , humans may have an assortment of genes that dogs do not – and possibly the other way around . But just because humans may have certain genes that dogs do n't , does not mean that these genes cause the difference between humans and dogs . Of course , there are no  “ dog genes ” or  “ human genes. ” But likewise there are no  “ tongue genes ,  ”  “ tail genes ” or  “ toenail genes. ” Parts are not translated genes . Thus , the assertion that new genes got created or that individual genes mutated over time to chnage one kind of animal into another is blatantly false and physically impossible . But it 's worse than that . As I said before , humans have a whole slew of genes – theoretically , at least -- that dogs ( or other animals ) don ’ t have . But evolutionists still contend that these genetic differences cause the difference between the organisms ! That ’ s why they analyze DNA with such scrutiny ! But did it ever dawn on them that studying genetics is a compete waste of time because of the real possibility that each dog or each human has the genes they have because of what they are ? Scientists have been telling us for decades that who or what we are is determined by what genes we have ... But they ’ ve got it backwards ! Instead , we have the genes we have because of who we are . A dog is n't a dog because he barks ; a dog barks because of what he is . Same with genes . This , of course , spells destructin to ToE because it means genetic evolution is a fraud . Evolution , thus , should not be a theory based on changes in genes , but a theory based on changes in traits . But scientists continue to mess around with genes and try to make the body do weird things by mutating them . They simply won ’ t give up because they ’ ve seen correlations between gene activity and various physiological responses . But here ’ s where they ’ re screwing everything up : When you were a kid did you ever stand on your head ? If so , did your face ever get red if you stayed upside down for a period of time ? If so , do you admit that it was the act of being upside down that caused the blood to rush to your head ? Or , do you have the audacity to claim that you were upside down because your face was red ? That ’ s excactly what science is doing with genetics : they ’ ve got the audacity to claim that changes in genes ( the red face ) is causing the organsim to change physiologically ( go upside down . ) In reality , what ’ s happening is the organism is experiencing a new environment ( turning upside down ) and then the genes are responding in kind ( turning red ) . The only way you can prove this logic wrong is to do one of two things : 1 ) show me conclusively that mutations happen completely randomly and unoriented to environmental pressures . 2 ) show me that the same environmental pressures on genes will not produce the exact same physiological effects over and over and over . So there it is . Go for it ."
|
"So what this guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"But did it ever dawn on them that studying genetics is a compete waste of time because of the real possibility that each dog or each human has the genes they have because of what they are ?"
|
"So what this guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
| null | null |
521
| 152
|
"This post contains a perfectly simple explanation of why ToE is a sham along with a challenge to any Darwinist to prove me wrong . ToE is constructed on a fraud premise . This premise says that the fundamental unit of evolution is the gene . Whenever an evolutionist talks about  “ evolution ” he ’ s not talking about mere phenotypic change – he ’ s talking about changes in genes . To a Darwinist , just because an animal changes phentoypically , or even if he passes these changes down to progeny does not mean that  “ evolution ” has occurred . A fish could morph into a human , but if there are no changes in genes then this would not be considered `` evolution. `` The only way evolution can happen , by their own definition , is if there is a change in genetics . This premise , I suggest is a complete and total fraud ... and I will explain why now : Let ’ s take humans and dogs , for example . When compared side-by-side , sure enough , humans may have an assortment of genes that dogs do not – and possibly the other way around . But just because humans may have certain genes that dogs do n't , does not mean that these genes cause the difference between humans and dogs . Of course , there are no  “ dog genes ” or  “ human genes. ” But likewise there are no  “ tongue genes ,  ”  “ tail genes ” or  “ toenail genes. ” Parts are not translated genes . Thus , the assertion that new genes got created or that individual genes mutated over time to chnage one kind of animal into another is blatantly false and physically impossible . But it 's worse than that . As I said before , humans have a whole slew of genes – theoretically , at least -- that dogs ( or other animals ) don ’ t have . But evolutionists still contend that these genetic differences cause the difference between the organisms ! That ’ s why they analyze DNA with such scrutiny ! But did it ever dawn on them that studying genetics is a compete waste of time because of the real possibility that each dog or each human has the genes they have because of what they are ? Scientists have been telling us for decades that who or what we are is determined by what genes we have ... But they ’ ve got it backwards ! Instead , we have the genes we have because of who we are . A dog is n't a dog because he barks ; a dog barks because of what he is . Same with genes . This , of course , spells destructin to ToE because it means genetic evolution is a fraud . Evolution , thus , should not be a theory based on changes in genes , but a theory based on changes in traits . But scientists continue to mess around with genes and try to make the body do weird things by mutating them . They simply won ’ t give up because they ’ ve seen correlations between gene activity and various physiological responses . But here ’ s where they ’ re screwing everything up : When you were a kid did you ever stand on your head ? If so , did your face ever get red if you stayed upside down for a period of time ? If so , do you admit that it was the act of being upside down that caused the blood to rush to your head ? Or , do you have the audacity to claim that you were upside down because your face was red ? That ’ s excactly what science is doing with genetics : they ’ ve got the audacity to claim that changes in genes ( the red face ) is causing the organsim to change physiologically ( go upside down . ) In reality , what ’ s happening is the organism is experiencing a new environment ( turning upside down ) and then the genes are responding in kind ( turning red ) . The only way you can prove this logic wrong is to do one of two things : 1 ) show me conclusively that mutations happen completely randomly and unoriented to environmental pressures . 2 ) show me that the same environmental pressures on genes will not produce the exact same physiological effects over and over and over . So there it is . Go for it ."
|
"So what this guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"ToE is constructed on a fraud premise ."
|
"he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
| null | null |
520
| 152
|
"This post contains a perfectly simple explanation of why ToE is a sham along with a challenge to any Darwinist to prove me wrong . ToE is constructed on a fraud premise . This premise says that the fundamental unit of evolution is the gene . Whenever an evolutionist talks about  “ evolution ” he ’ s not talking about mere phenotypic change – he ’ s talking about changes in genes . To a Darwinist , just because an animal changes phentoypically , or even if he passes these changes down to progeny does not mean that  “ evolution ” has occurred . A fish could morph into a human , but if there are no changes in genes then this would not be considered `` evolution. `` The only way evolution can happen , by their own definition , is if there is a change in genetics . This premise , I suggest is a complete and total fraud ... and I will explain why now : Let ’ s take humans and dogs , for example . When compared side-by-side , sure enough , humans may have an assortment of genes that dogs do not – and possibly the other way around . But just because humans may have certain genes that dogs do n't , does not mean that these genes cause the difference between humans and dogs . Of course , there are no  “ dog genes ” or  “ human genes. ” But likewise there are no  “ tongue genes ,  ”  “ tail genes ” or  “ toenail genes. ” Parts are not translated genes . Thus , the assertion that new genes got created or that individual genes mutated over time to chnage one kind of animal into another is blatantly false and physically impossible . But it 's worse than that . As I said before , humans have a whole slew of genes – theoretically , at least -- that dogs ( or other animals ) don ’ t have . But evolutionists still contend that these genetic differences cause the difference between the organisms ! That ’ s why they analyze DNA with such scrutiny ! But did it ever dawn on them that studying genetics is a compete waste of time because of the real possibility that each dog or each human has the genes they have because of what they are ? Scientists have been telling us for decades that who or what we are is determined by what genes we have ... But they ’ ve got it backwards ! Instead , we have the genes we have because of who we are . A dog is n't a dog because he barks ; a dog barks because of what he is . Same with genes . This , of course , spells destructin to ToE because it means genetic evolution is a fraud . Evolution , thus , should not be a theory based on changes in genes , but a theory based on changes in traits . But scientists continue to mess around with genes and try to make the body do weird things by mutating them . They simply won ’ t give up because they ’ ve seen correlations between gene activity and various physiological responses . But here ’ s where they ’ re screwing everything up : When you were a kid did you ever stand on your head ? If so , did your face ever get red if you stayed upside down for a period of time ? If so , do you admit that it was the act of being upside down that caused the blood to rush to your head ? Or , do you have the audacity to claim that you were upside down because your face was red ? That ’ s excactly what science is doing with genetics : they ’ ve got the audacity to claim that changes in genes ( the red face ) is causing the organsim to change physiologically ( go upside down . ) In reality , what ’ s happening is the organism is experiencing a new environment ( turning upside down ) and then the genes are responding in kind ( turning red ) . The only way you can prove this logic wrong is to do one of two things : 1 ) show me conclusively that mutations happen completely randomly and unoriented to environmental pressures . 2 ) show me that the same environmental pressures on genes will not produce the exact same physiological effects over and over and over . So there it is . Go for it ."
|
"So what this guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"ToE is a sham along with a challenge to any Darwinist to prove me wrong . ToE is constructed on a fraud premise , In reality , what ’ s happening is the organism is experiencing a new environment"
|
"he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
| null | null |
518
| 152
|
"This post contains a perfectly simple explanation of why ToE is a sham along with a challenge to any Darwinist to prove me wrong . ToE is constructed on a fraud premise . This premise says that the fundamental unit of evolution is the gene . Whenever an evolutionist talks about  “ evolution ” he ’ s not talking about mere phenotypic change – he ’ s talking about changes in genes . To a Darwinist , just because an animal changes phentoypically , or even if he passes these changes down to progeny does not mean that  “ evolution ” has occurred . A fish could morph into a human , but if there are no changes in genes then this would not be considered `` evolution. `` The only way evolution can happen , by their own definition , is if there is a change in genetics . This premise , I suggest is a complete and total fraud ... and I will explain why now : Let ’ s take humans and dogs , for example . When compared side-by-side , sure enough , humans may have an assortment of genes that dogs do not – and possibly the other way around . But just because humans may have certain genes that dogs do n't , does not mean that these genes cause the difference between humans and dogs . Of course , there are no  “ dog genes ” or  “ human genes. ” But likewise there are no  “ tongue genes ,  ”  “ tail genes ” or  “ toenail genes. ” Parts are not translated genes . Thus , the assertion that new genes got created or that individual genes mutated over time to chnage one kind of animal into another is blatantly false and physically impossible . But it 's worse than that . As I said before , humans have a whole slew of genes – theoretically , at least -- that dogs ( or other animals ) don ’ t have . But evolutionists still contend that these genetic differences cause the difference between the organisms ! That ’ s why they analyze DNA with such scrutiny ! But did it ever dawn on them that studying genetics is a compete waste of time because of the real possibility that each dog or each human has the genes they have because of what they are ? Scientists have been telling us for decades that who or what we are is determined by what genes we have ... But they ’ ve got it backwards ! Instead , we have the genes we have because of who we are . A dog is n't a dog because he barks ; a dog barks because of what he is . Same with genes . This , of course , spells destructin to ToE because it means genetic evolution is a fraud . Evolution , thus , should not be a theory based on changes in genes , but a theory based on changes in traits . But scientists continue to mess around with genes and try to make the body do weird things by mutating them . They simply won ’ t give up because they ’ ve seen correlations between gene activity and various physiological responses . But here ’ s where they ’ re screwing everything up : When you were a kid did you ever stand on your head ? If so , did your face ever get red if you stayed upside down for a period of time ? If so , do you admit that it was the act of being upside down that caused the blood to rush to your head ? Or , do you have the audacity to claim that you were upside down because your face was red ? That ’ s excactly what science is doing with genetics : they ’ ve got the audacity to claim that changes in genes ( the red face ) is causing the organsim to change physiologically ( go upside down . ) In reality , what ’ s happening is the organism is experiencing a new environment ( turning upside down ) and then the genes are responding in kind ( turning red ) . The only way you can prove this logic wrong is to do one of two things : 1 ) show me conclusively that mutations happen completely randomly and unoriented to environmental pressures . 2 ) show me that the same environmental pressures on genes will not produce the exact same physiological effects over and over and over . So there it is . Go for it ."
|
"So what this guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"This premise says that the fundamental unit of evolution is the gene"
|
"guy is saying is that he believes in natural selection but not evolution"
| null | null |
527
| 153
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Oh dear God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind"
|
"God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does"
| null | null |
524
| 153
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Oh dear God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
| null | null |
529
| 153
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Oh dear God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
| null | null |
528
| 153
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Oh dear God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
| null | null |
526
| 153
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Oh dear God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional ,"
|
"Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
| null | null |
525
| 153
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Oh dear God your ignorance is abundant ! Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"If DOMA is n't declared unconstitutional , then those arguing against Prop 8 are micturating into the wind ."
|
"Do you not understand what the federal DOMA law does ?"
| null | null |
531
| 154
|
"with tens of millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"and you think the guns are still the problem"
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
| null | null |
530
| 154
|
"with tens of millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem"
|
"was the last mass murder at a UK university then"
| null | null |
534
| 154
|
"with tens of millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
| null | null |
535
| 154
|
"with tens of millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"the guns are still the problem"
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university"
| null | null |
532
| 154
|
"with tens of millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"millions of gun owners , hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
| null | null |
533
| 154
|
"with tens of millions of gun owners , and hundreds of millions of guns in the US , and you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"you think the guns are still the problem ...."
|
"When was the last mass murder at a UK university then ?"
| null | null |
537
| 155
|
"And why are you letting them define what the theory is ? Especially when it is wrong . Of course , I am arguing that having fewer assumptions has nothing to do with being right ."
|
"But do you think that more assumptions is more likely to be correct ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"I am arguing that having fewer assumptions has nothing to do with being right ."
|
"do you think that more assumptions is more likely to be correct"
| null | null |
536
| 155
|
"And why are you letting them define what the theory is ? Especially when it is wrong . Of course , I am arguing that having fewer assumptions has nothing to do with being right ."
|
"But do you think that more assumptions is more likely to be correct ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"And why are you letting them define what the theory is ? Especially when it is wrong"
|
"do you think that more assumptions is more likely to be correct ?"
| null | null |
539
| 156
|
"Have you read the decision ? http : //msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/S ... aymarriage.pdf I can not even see a homophobe like Scalia striking down this decision . Both defense witness contradicted themselves and both where found to be non credible ."
|
"Under the illogical view of the 14th amendment that currently occupies our court system there is nothing more about it than convincing 5 judges that it is n't immoral . Let 's not pretend this is anything related to what the amendment actually says because we both know it is n't ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"I can not even see a homophobe like Scalia striking down this decision ."
|
"Under the illogical view of the 14th amendment that currently occupies our court system there is nothing more about it than convincing"
| null | null |
538
| 156
|
"Have you read the decision ? http : //msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/S ... aymarriage.pdf I can not even see a homophobe like Scalia striking down this decision . Both defense witness contradicted themselves and both where found to be non credible ."
|
"Under the illogical view of the 14th amendment that currently occupies our court system there is nothing more about it than convincing 5 judges that it is n't immoral . Let 's not pretend this is anything related to what the amendment actually says because we both know it is n't ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"I can not even see a homophobe like Scalia striking down this decision ."
|
"the amendment actually says because we both know it is n't ."
| null | null |
540
| 157
|
"Brace yourself , howard ...... a new poll released today in the NY Times says most americans favor teaching creationism in the schools ......"
|
"I was referring to being foolish enough to engage in an actual debate supporting the teaching of creationism in science class . We did get one taker though ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Times says most americans favor teaching creationism in the schools"
|
"an actual debate supporting the teaching of creationism in science class ."
| null | null |
541
| 157
|
"Brace yourself , howard ...... a new poll released today in the NY Times says most americans favor teaching creationism in the schools ......"
|
"I was referring to being foolish enough to engage in an actual debate supporting the teaching of creationism in science class . We did get one taker though ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"a new poll released today in the NY Times says most americans favor teaching creationism in the schools"
|
"debate ."
| null | null |
543
| 158
|
"Really , it 's a two sided coin . If a theory such as evolution can be taught in school , against many people 's beliefs , why ca n't creationism , without using the excuse that it 's `` illegal `` ."
|
"Because evolution is a scientific theory , and has evidence for it . Creationism is religion . ID is bad science , and bad theology .. and there is no evidence for . If you look at the people who push it , and the place where their funding is coming from , you can see it is a religious front for far right CHristians . Many Chrisitans do not have a problem with evolution . They are what are known as 'theistic Evolutionists ' , who feel that God directs the course of evolution . The intelligent ones of those realise that is a religious belief , not something that can be proven , hence it is an object of faith . Evolution can be demonstrated in the lab . It makes predictions that can be tested . And , with 150 years of testing , it has not been able to be falsified ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"against many people 's beliefs , why ca n't creationism , without using the excuse that it 's `` illegal"
|
"They are what are known as 'theistic Evolutionists '"
| null | null |
542
| 158
|
"Really , it 's a two sided coin . If a theory such as evolution can be taught in school , against many people 's beliefs , why ca n't creationism , without using the excuse that it 's `` illegal `` ."
|
"Because evolution is a scientific theory , and has evidence for it . Creationism is religion . ID is bad science , and bad theology .. and there is no evidence for . If you look at the people who push it , and the place where their funding is coming from , you can see it is a religious front for far right CHristians . Many Chrisitans do not have a problem with evolution . They are what are known as 'theistic Evolutionists ' , who feel that God directs the course of evolution . The intelligent ones of those realise that is a religious belief , not something that can be proven , hence it is an object of faith . Evolution can be demonstrated in the lab . It makes predictions that can be tested . And , with 150 years of testing , it has not been able to be falsified ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"'s a two sided coin . If a theory such as evolution can be taught in school , against many people 's beliefs"
|
"Because evolution is a scientific theory , and has evidence for it . Creationism is religion . ID is bad science , and bad theology"
| null | null |
544
| 159
|
"They did not date their works back then . Signatres were worth nothng back then . The witness , however , is every early christian and , of coarse , God himself ."
|
"So bring on the witnesses ! Sounds like a very cold case to me . And how could the early christians witness the creation ? They came around much later and its believed that the lab book was written long long after the fact - very bad practice for evidence that !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"They did not date their works back then . Signatres were worth nothng back then . The witness , however"
|
"bring on the witnesses ! Sounds like a very cold case to me . And how could the early christians witness the creation ?"
| null | null |
545
| 159
|
"They did not date their works back then . Signatres were worth nothng back then . The witness , however , is every early christian and , of coarse , God himself ."
|
"So bring on the witnesses ! Sounds like a very cold case to me . And how could the early christians witness the creation ? They came around much later and its believed that the lab book was written long long after the fact - very bad practice for evidence that !"
|
DISAGREE
|
"The witness , however , is every early christian and , of coarse , God himself ."
|
"They came around much later and its believed that the lab book"
| null | null |
547
| 160
|
"meaning # 2 , ( biology { only } ) `` the sequence of events involved in the [ process in which { organisms } pass [ ] by degrees to a different stage ] [ in the ] development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms `` ."
|
"Well , that 's pretty confused . You seem to be grasping at straws . You do n't seem to understand and you are thrashing about in an effort to make yourself look as if you understand . Clearly you do n't understand ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"the sequence of events involved in the [ process in which { organisms }"
|
"do n't seem to understand and you are thrashing about in an effort to make yourself look"
| null | null |
546
| 160
|
"meaning # 2 , ( biology { only } ) `` the sequence of events involved in the [ process in which { organisms } pass [ ] by degrees to a different stage ] [ in the ] development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms `` ."
|
"Well , that 's pretty confused . You seem to be grasping at straws . You do n't seem to understand and you are thrashing about in an effort to make yourself look as if you understand . Clearly you do n't understand ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"sequence of events involved in the [ process in which { organisms } pass [ ] by degrees to a different stage ]"
|
"that 's pretty confused . You seem to be grasping at straws . You do n't seem to understand and you are thrashing about in an effort"
| null | null |
549
| 161
|
"I 'm not going to enter into one of your little definition changing XXXXX matches ."
|
"Oh , well in that case , there may be no debate at all ..."
|
DISAGREE
|
"I 'm not going to enter into one of your little definition changing"
|
"well in that case , there may be no debate at"
| null | null |
553
| 162
|
"but I do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting . S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and monkeys. ``"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up . And even when I answered him about what the connection is , he still just went on assuming this ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"S/he stated explicitly You got confused"
|
"But I did n't"
| null | null |
550
| 162
|
"but I do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting . S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and monkeys. ``"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up . And even when I answered him about what the connection is , he still just went on assuming this ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates ."
| null | null |
552
| 162
|
"but I do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting . S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and monkeys. ``"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up . And even when I answered him about what the connection is , he still just went on assuming this ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting"
|
"But I did n't ."
| null | null |
554
| 162
|
"but I do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting . S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and monkeys. ``"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up . And even when I answered him about what the connection is , he still just went on assuming this ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting"
|
"established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates"
| null | null |
551
| 162
|
"but I do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting . S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and monkeys. ``"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up . And even when I answered him about what the connection is , he still just went on assuming this ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Clive14 `` You messed up and got confused apes"
|
"But I did n't . the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up ."
| null | null |
555
| 162
|
"but I do n't think that 's what Clive14 was suggesting . S/he stated explicitly , `` You messed up and got confused between apes and monkeys. ``"
|
"But I did n't . I established the connection in my first answer the connection was primates . If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up . And even when I answered him about what the connection is , he still just went on assuming this ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"You messed up and got confused between apes and"
|
"If I 'd have said `` Apes `` then you 'd have something to work with . You do n't . He just assumed I was mixed up ."
| null | null |
556
| 163
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends . They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends ."
| null | null |
558
| 163
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends . They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
| null | null |
557
| 163
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends . They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties"
| null | null |
560
| 163
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends . They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"where do concepts come"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere"
| null | null |
561
| 163
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends . They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
| null | null |
559
| 163
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations , beginnings or ends . They do not require a creator , physical ( the universe ) or imaginary ( God ) ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"where do concepts come from when all that exist is matter"
|
"Concepts do not `` come from `` somewhere , they are not physical entities"
| null | null |
565
| 164
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage , views of race , and the  “ proper ” interaction between the races . They date from 1823-1964 and were culled by reporter Eric Zorn from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court . Zorn ’ s article was published in the Chicago Tribune , May 19 , 1996"
|
"But , these are still males and females of the human species passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves , which we know Gay folks can not do in nature . GL , Terral"
|
DISAGREE
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage"
|
"Gay folks can not do in nature . GL , Terral"
| null | null |
562
| 164
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage , views of race , and the  “ proper ” interaction between the races . They date from 1823-1964 and were culled by reporter Eric Zorn from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court . Zorn ’ s article was published in the Chicago Tribune , May 19 , 1996"
|
"But , these are still males and females of the human species passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves , which we know Gay folks can not do in nature . GL , Terral"
|
DISAGREE
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage , views of race , and the  proper interaction between the races ."
|
"But , these are still males and females of the human species passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves , which we know Gay folks can not do in nature ."
| null | null |
567
| 164
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage , views of race , and the  “ proper ” interaction between the races . They date from 1823-1964 and were culled by reporter Eric Zorn from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court . Zorn ’ s article was published in the Chicago Tribune , May 19 , 1996"
|
"But , these are still males and females of the human species passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves , which we know Gay folks can not do in nature . GL , Terral"
|
DISAGREE
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage , views of race ,"
|
"passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves , which we know Gay folks can not do in nature"
| null | null |
566
| 164
|
"All of these quotes refer to interracial marriage , views of race , and the  “ proper ” interaction between the races . They date from 1823-1964 and were culled by reporter Eric Zorn from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court . Zorn ’ s article was published in the Chicago Tribune , May 19 , 1996"
|
"But , these are still males and females of the human species passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves , which we know Gay folks can not do in nature . GL , Terral"
|
DISAGREE
|
"refer to interracial marriage , views of race"
|
"human species passing on their genetic capacity to reproduce themselves"
| null | null |
571
| 165
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way . There is no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ... no matter how hard any of us try"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement"
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way"
| null | null |
573
| 165
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way . There is no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ... no matter how hard any of us try"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations ,"
|
"This is wrong"
| null | null |
572
| 165
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way . There is no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ... no matter how hard any of us try"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations"
|
"This is wrong ."
| null | null |
569
| 165
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way . There is no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ... no matter how hard any of us try"
|
DISAGREE
|
"All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"There is no rational argument for mental existence"
| null | null |
570
| 165
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way . There is no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ... no matter how hard any of us try"
|
DISAGREE
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them rational arguement"
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ..."
| null | null |
568
| 165
|
"Pro-choice supporters tend not to think in terms of moral proclamations , so proclamations such as `` All human life is sacred `` mean little to them if not more fully supported by rational arguement ."
|
"This is wrong . You yourself find `` mental existence `` to be `` sacred ' in a way . There is no rational argument for mental existence being the point of obtaining rights ... no matter how hard any of us try"
|
DISAGREE
|
"not more fully supported by rational arguement"
|
"no rational argument for mental existence being the point"
| null | null |
579
| 166
|
"If evolution occurs to all life forms , there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"And all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving ."
|
AGREE
|
"If evolution occurs all life would be in transition"
|
"And all life is in transition"
| null | null |
576
| 166
|
"If evolution occurs to all life forms , there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"And all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving ."
|
AGREE
|
"evolution occurs to all life forms ,"
|
"all life is in transition ."
| null | null |
574
| 166
|
"If evolution occurs to all life forms , there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"And all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving ."
|
AGREE
|
"If evolution occurs to all life forms , there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving ."
| null | null |
575
| 166
|
"If evolution occurs to all life forms , there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"And all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving ."
|
AGREE
|
"no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition"
|
"all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving"
| null | null |
578
| 166
|
"If evolution occurs to all life forms , there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"And all life is in transition . Even the roach . Bacteria as we speak are evolving ."
|
AGREE
|
"there could be no life forms today which have not evolved , because all life would be in transition ."
|
"And all life is in transition ."
| null | null |
582
| 167
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
|
AGREE
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
| null | null |
580
| 167
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
|
AGREE
|
"men can marry men , and women can marry women"
|
"Yes"
| null | null |
585
| 167
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
|
AGREE
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women"
|
"Yes"
| null | null |
584
| 167
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
|
AGREE
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women"
|
"Yes"
| null | null |
581
| 167
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
|
AGREE
|
"So men can marry men , and women can marry women ."
|
"Yes"
| null | null |
591
| 168
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . Once again , this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed - as you said in your original topic starting post . But it is reasonable to believe , that if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist - hence , since it does exist , it is logical to believe that He is somehow sustaining it ( obviously not as much as He can ) . So , if true , the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation ; and miracles can be explained in such a way to say that it is God just acting on a part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law . what 's more , nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality I 'm glad you responded Nu Leader . this is this issue that really hits the religion/science divide . as it is , God has been gradually and subliminally coralled in the spiritual realm . there is absolutely nothing in the physical and observable world that is a function of God , or a manifestation of supernatural power . in other words , in the realm of the physical , God has no turf . even if God does exist , he does not ( and by biblical definition , can not ) physically manifest his being nor the effect of his power this leaves us with the spiritual realm . this realm , whether it exists or not , does affect people . yet this realm is as elusive and intangible as God himself . the same realm that God is believed to abive and reign in , is said to be the same realm that humans enter only when they die . i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
|
DISAGREE
|
"part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical"
|
"many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
| null | null |
586
| 168
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . Once again , this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed - as you said in your original topic starting post . But it is reasonable to believe , that if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist - hence , since it does exist , it is logical to believe that He is somehow sustaining it ( obviously not as much as He can ) . So , if true , the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation ; and miracles can be explained in such a way to say that it is God just acting on a part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law . what 's more , nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality I 'm glad you responded Nu Leader . this is this issue that really hits the religion/science divide . as it is , God has been gradually and subliminally coralled in the spiritual realm . there is absolutely nothing in the physical and observable world that is a function of God , or a manifestation of supernatural power . in other words , in the realm of the physical , God has no turf . even if God does exist , he does not ( and by biblical definition , can not ) physically manifest his being nor the effect of his power this leaves us with the spiritual realm . this realm , whether it exists or not , does affect people . yet this realm is as elusive and intangible as God himself . the same realm that God is believed to abive and reign in , is said to be the same realm that humans enter only when they die . i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
|
DISAGREE
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation"
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . `` nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
| null | null |
587
| 168
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . Once again , this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed - as you said in your original topic starting post . But it is reasonable to believe , that if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist - hence , since it does exist , it is logical to believe that He is somehow sustaining it ( obviously not as much as He can ) . So , if true , the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation ; and miracles can be explained in such a way to say that it is God just acting on a part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law . what 's more , nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality I 'm glad you responded Nu Leader . this is this issue that really hits the religion/science divide . as it is , God has been gradually and subliminally coralled in the spiritual realm . there is absolutely nothing in the physical and observable world that is a function of God , or a manifestation of supernatural power . in other words , in the realm of the physical , God has no turf . even if God does exist , he does not ( and by biblical definition , can not ) physically manifest his being nor the effect of his power this leaves us with the spiritual realm . this realm , whether it exists or not , does affect people . yet this realm is as elusive and intangible as God himself . the same realm that God is believed to abive and reign in , is said to be the same realm that humans enter only when they die . i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
|
DISAGREE
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law ."
| null | null |
589
| 168
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . Once again , this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed - as you said in your original topic starting post . But it is reasonable to believe , that if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist - hence , since it does exist , it is logical to believe that He is somehow sustaining it ( obviously not as much as He can ) . So , if true , the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation ; and miracles can be explained in such a way to say that it is God just acting on a part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law . what 's more , nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality I 'm glad you responded Nu Leader . this is this issue that really hits the religion/science divide . as it is , God has been gradually and subliminally coralled in the spiritual realm . there is absolutely nothing in the physical and observable world that is a function of God , or a manifestation of supernatural power . in other words , in the realm of the physical , God has no turf . even if God does exist , he does not ( and by biblical definition , can not ) physically manifest his being nor the effect of his power this leaves us with the spiritual realm . this realm , whether it exists or not , does affect people . yet this realm is as elusive and intangible as God himself . the same realm that God is believed to abive and reign in , is said to be the same realm that humans enter only when they die . i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
|
DISAGREE
|
"You are assuming that God is His creation"
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe ."
| null | null |
590
| 168
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . Once again , this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed - as you said in your original topic starting post . But it is reasonable to believe , that if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist - hence , since it does exist , it is logical to believe that He is somehow sustaining it ( obviously not as much as He can ) . So , if true , the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation ; and miracles can be explained in such a way to say that it is God just acting on a part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law . what 's more , nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality I 'm glad you responded Nu Leader . this is this issue that really hits the religion/science divide . as it is , God has been gradually and subliminally coralled in the spiritual realm . there is absolutely nothing in the physical and observable world that is a function of God , or a manifestation of supernatural power . in other words , in the realm of the physical , God has no turf . even if God does exist , he does not ( and by biblical definition , can not ) physically manifest his being nor the effect of his power this leaves us with the spiritual realm . this realm , whether it exists or not , does affect people . yet this realm is as elusive and intangible as God himself . the same realm that God is believed to abive and reign in , is said to be the same realm that humans enter only when they die . i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
|
DISAGREE
|
"if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist"
|
"God has no turf . even if God does exist"
| null | null |
588
| 168
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation . Once again , this can not be proven nor disproven by science as it can not be tested or observed - as you said in your original topic starting post . But it is reasonable to believe , that if there is a God who created the whole universe , then without Him sustaining it somehow , it would cease to exist - hence , since it does exist , it is logical to believe that He is somehow sustaining it ( obviously not as much as He can ) . So , if true , the observations that we see and/or take , are the effects of God acting on His creation ; and miracles can be explained in such a way to say that it is God just acting on a part of His creation in a different way , this is not only plausible but logical ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe . there is not one single function of nature that isnt on `` autopilot `` as it were . that is , no function needed to sustain the universe occurs outside of natural law . what 's more , nothing that defies natural law ( whether universe-sustaining or not ) ever occurs in observable reality I 'm glad you responded Nu Leader . this is this issue that really hits the religion/science divide . as it is , God has been gradually and subliminally coralled in the spiritual realm . there is absolutely nothing in the physical and observable world that is a function of God , or a manifestation of supernatural power . in other words , in the realm of the physical , God has no turf . even if God does exist , he does not ( and by biblical definition , can not ) physically manifest his being nor the effect of his power this leaves us with the spiritual realm . this realm , whether it exists or not , does affect people . yet this realm is as elusive and intangible as God himself . the same realm that God is believed to abive and reign in , is said to be the same realm that humans enter only when they die . i have many thoughts about the effects of this spiritual realm on reality , but for now i think its sufficient to say that God is limited to the spiritual realm only"
|
DISAGREE
|
"You are assuming that God ( if there is one ) is not somehow sustaining His creation ."
|
"as far as all observable evidence dictates , the laws of nature are what sustains the universe ."
| null | null |
594
| 169
|
"as for the proof , its really not a proof at all . if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . if i define a ufo as a flying spacecraft from another planet in reality , that does not make such things exist . its just a definition . i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof basically , the definition : `` a being possessing every perfection and every positive attribute `` is not a true definition , because both perfection and positive attributes are subjective . so theres really nothing to work with here God , by this definition , doesnt exist"
|
"Well , according to Descartes , if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections - including reality in every degree . So this idea also contains existence . God 's essence is to exist , and of no other thing can this be said . ( Existence in everything else being contingent . ) To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"God is defined as a perfect being in reality ,"
|
"God 's essence is to exist"
| null | null |
597
| 169
|
"as for the proof , its really not a proof at all . if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . if i define a ufo as a flying spacecraft from another planet in reality , that does not make such things exist . its just a definition . i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof basically , the definition : `` a being possessing every perfection and every positive attribute `` is not a true definition , because both perfection and positive attributes are subjective . so theres really nothing to work with here God , by this definition , doesnt exist"
|
"Well , according to Descartes , if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections - including reality in every degree . So this idea also contains existence . God 's essence is to exist , and of no other thing can this be said . ( Existence in everything else being contingent . ) To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof basically , the definition : `` a being possessing every perfection and every positive attribute `` is not a true definition , because both perfection and positive attributes are subjective . so theres really nothing to work with here God , by this definition , doesnt exist"
|
"Well , according to Descartes , if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections - including reality in every degree . So this idea also contains existence . God 's essence is to exist , and of no other thing can this be said . ( Existence in everything else being contingent . ) To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
| null | null |
593
| 169
|
"as for the proof , its really not a proof at all . if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . if i define a ufo as a flying spacecraft from another planet in reality , that does not make such things exist . its just a definition . i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof basically , the definition : `` a being possessing every perfection and every positive attribute `` is not a true definition , because both perfection and positive attributes are subjective . so theres really nothing to work with here God , by this definition , doesnt exist"
|
"Well , according to Descartes , if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections - including reality in every degree . So this idea also contains existence . God 's essence is to exist , and of no other thing can this be said . ( Existence in everything else being contingent . ) To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"as for the proof i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof"
|
"Descartes idea of a most perfect being God 's essence"
| null | null |
596
| 169
|
"as for the proof , its really not a proof at all . if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . if i define a ufo as a flying spacecraft from another planet in reality , that does not make such things exist . its just a definition . i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof basically , the definition : `` a being possessing every perfection and every positive attribute `` is not a true definition , because both perfection and positive attributes are subjective . so theres really nothing to work with here God , by this definition , doesnt exist"
|
"Well , according to Descartes , if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections - including reality in every degree . So this idea also contains existence . God 's essence is to exist , and of no other thing can this be said . ( Existence in everything else being contingent . ) To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"as for the proof , its really not a proof at all . if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . ``"
|
"To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
| null | null |
595
| 169
|
"as for the proof , its really not a proof at all . if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists . if i define a ufo as a flying spacecraft from another planet in reality , that does not make such things exist . its just a definition . i really dont see how that can be even considered a proof basically , the definition : `` a being possessing every perfection and every positive attribute `` is not a true definition , because both perfection and positive attributes are subjective . so theres really nothing to work with here God , by this definition , doesnt exist"
|
"Well , according to Descartes , if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections - including reality in every degree . So this idea also contains existence . God 's essence is to exist , and of no other thing can this be said . ( Existence in everything else being contingent . ) To refute these arguments , and some philosophers doubt they can be refuted , I think you will need to take another tack ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"if God is defined as a perfect being in reality , that does not mean that God exists ."
|
"if I have an idea of a most perfect being , I shall distinctly perceive that such a being must contain all perfections"
| null | null |
599
| 170
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed person . ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times !"
|
"that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed person"
| null | null |
598
| 170
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed person . ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"where ever i have seen one"
|
"somhow you mutated into some"
| null | null |
602
| 170
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed person . ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed ?"
| null | null |
600
| 170
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed person . ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"a supernatural act where ever i have seen one"
|
"that could happen if somhow you mutated into some"
| null | null |
601
| 170
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed person . ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"WOW that is a supernatural act where ever i have seen one , to be able to roll a dice billions of times ! !"
|
"well that could happen if somhow you mutated into some .. i dunno ... 600 armed ?"
| null | null |
608
| 171
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ? No one !"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often . So when are you going to get to the most delicious , highly satisfying entertainment ? Even more important , when are you going to expose the theory of evolution ? YOu do n't seriously propose that your little series of cow pies is actually meaningful , do you ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ?"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often ."
| null | null |
604
| 171
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ? No one !"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often . So when are you going to get to the most delicious , highly satisfying entertainment ? Even more important , when are you going to expose the theory of evolution ? YOu do n't seriously propose that your little series of cow pies is actually meaningful , do you ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes"
|
"So when are you going to get to the most delicious"
| null | null |
605
| 171
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ? No one !"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often . So when are you going to get to the most delicious , highly satisfying entertainment ? Even more important , when are you going to expose the theory of evolution ? YOu do n't seriously propose that your little series of cow pies is actually meaningful , do you ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"right minds descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ?"
|
"the argument creationists so often Even more"
| null | null |
607
| 171
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ? No one !"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often . So when are you going to get to the most delicious , highly satisfying entertainment ? Even more important , when are you going to expose the theory of evolution ? YOu do n't seriously propose that your little series of cow pies is actually meaningful , do you ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ?"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often ."
| null | null |
606
| 171
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ? No one !"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often . So when are you going to get to the most delicious , highly satisfying entertainment ? Even more important , when are you going to expose the theory of evolution ? YOu do n't seriously propose that your little series of cow pies is actually meaningful , do you ?"
|
DISAGREE
|
"because who in their right minds wants to be known as a descendant to a bunch of disgusting Brutes ? No one !"
|
"Well , that is the argument that one hears from creationists so often . So when are you going to get to the most delicious , highly satisfying entertainment ? Even more important , when are you going to expose the theory of evolution ? YOu do n't seriously propose that your little series of cow pies is actually meaningful , do you ?"
| null | null |
614
| 172
|
"Give Ryuuichi a break will you . She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us . Christ , wasnt anybody here 17 years old ?"
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before , but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not . Now that I 'm 26 I can take people not agreeing with me . I 'm not knocking her decision , just her attitude ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us ."
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before , but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not ."
| null | null |
613
| 172
|
"Give Ryuuichi a break will you . She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us . Christ , wasnt anybody here 17 years old ?"
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before , but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not . Now that I 'm 26 I can take people not agreeing with me . I 'm not knocking her decision , just her attitude ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us . Christ , wasnt anybody here 17 years old ?"
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before , but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not ."
| null | null |
610
| 172
|
"Give Ryuuichi a break will you . She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us . Christ , wasnt anybody here 17 years old ?"
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before , but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not . Now that I 'm 26 I can take people not agreeing with me . I 'm not knocking her decision , just her attitude ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Ryuuichi a break will contemplating getting sterilised"
|
"asked a question I was mature enough to deal"
| null | null |
615
| 172
|
"Give Ryuuichi a break will you . She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us . Christ , wasnt anybody here 17 years old ?"
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before , but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not . Now that I 'm 26 I can take people not agreeing with me . I 'm not knocking her decision , just her attitude ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Give Ryuuichi a break will you She is a 17 year old girl that is contemplating getting sterilised and is sharing that with the rest of us . Christ , wasnt anybody here 17 years old ?"
|
"Yes I was 17 years old before but if I asked a question , or told my business , I was mature enough to deal with the responses whether they were in my favor or not . Now that I 'm 26 I can take people not agreeing with me . I 'm not knocking her decision , just her attitude ."
| null | null |
621
| 173
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere"
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood"
| null | null |
617
| 173
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"oxygen oxygen makes up 21 % running out anytime soon ."
|
"lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood"
| null | null |
616
| 173
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe ."
| null | null |
618
| 173
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean we won ’ t be running out anytime soon"
|
"Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
| null | null |
620
| 173
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
| null | null |
619
| 173
|
"Most of our oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean and even them oxygen makes up 21 % of the earth ’ s atmosphere so we won ’ t be running out anytime soon ."
|
"Your lungs depend on partial pressure to oxygenate your blood . A change in percentage concentration will result in a change in partial pressure . This affects how we breathe . Projections show that with global warming there will be a vast increase in ocean cloud coverage , resulting in inhibited growth and photosynthesis of ocean plants , resulting in a lower yield of O2 on average ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"running out anytime soon ."
|
"This affects how we breathe ."
| null | null |
624
| 174
|
"I am a person 15 years of age and I want my gun , yet I ca n't get one . Why not ?"
|
"Actually , you can . You can get a cap and ball revolver via mail order LEGALLY ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"am a person 15 years of age and I want my gun , yet I ca n't get one . Why not ?"
|
"Actually , you can . You can get a cap and ball revolver via mail order LEGALLY"
| null | null |
626
| 174
|
"I am a person 15 years of age and I want my gun , yet I ca n't get one . Why not ?"
|
"Actually , you can . You can get a cap and ball revolver via mail order LEGALLY ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"I am a person 15 years of age I want my gun"
|
"You can get a cap and ball revolver"
| null | null |
627
| 174
|
"I am a person 15 years of age and I want my gun , yet I ca n't get one . Why not ?"
|
"Actually , you can . You can get a cap and ball revolver via mail order LEGALLY ."
|
DISAGREE
|
"yet I ca n't get one ."
|
"You can get"
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.