[Xrow]

Thesis statement:
Order has the tendency to transition towards disorder.

My argument:
Throughout the universe, no matter religion nor ethnicity nor race nor any other impartial factor, order has the tendency to degenerate towards chaos.  This reality is seen everywhere in nature: life becomes death, new buildings become old and deteriorate, wealth becomes poverty.
An example of this is the Broken Window theory.  In essence, the Broken Window theory states that if a broken window on a building is not promptly fixed, miscreants will converge over time and will break more windows.



Discuss.

[zomniethe4]

i dont get it

[Xrow]

Do you agree or disagree with the thesis statement, and why?

[zomniethe4]

i dont get the thesis

[Xrow]

What..?
Did you read the rest of the post?  It explains one half of the thesis o.O

[Iridion]

did you turn into mini-opti or what

anyway, i dont see how life becoming (natural)death generates chaos

[Allie]

Not all good becomes bad, but it's difficult for bad to become good.

Believe it or not, I agree nearly completely with your thesis statement, but your evidence contradicts.

Your thesis claims that everything that is good normally, but not always, becomes bad.
Your evidence claims that EVERYTHING good goes bad eventually.
Both are theories, but they do not mean the same.

I believe in the first thesis, everything that is good normally goes bad.

/dumbed down for Zom

[Xrow]

did you turn into mini-opti or what

anyway, i dont see how life becoming (natural)death generates chaos

Naa, I've always been a thinker.  Me and Awptee had been debating belief for years (literally).

And I'm not saying that the degeneration of life spawns chaos, but that life leading to death is an example of order leading to chaos.

I agree nearly completely with your thesis statement, but your evidence contradicts.

Your thesis claims that everything that is good normally, but not always, becomes bad.
Your evidence claims that EVERYTHING good goes bad eventually.
Both are theories, but they do not mean the same.

I believe in the first thesis, everything that is good normally goes bad.

Thank you for the input.

That evidence was just an example; I quoted it as it was.  It was merely supportive of my thesis, not a replacement of it.

Another Example:
"Scientists in the Netherlands empirically demonstrated a phenomenon observed by policymakers and law-enforcement officials for years. When an envelope visibly containing a five-euro note was left hanging out of a mailbox on a sidewalk, 13 percent of the passersby snatched it up. When the same mailbox was covered in graffiti, however, more than double the number of the pedestrians (about 27 percent) stole the envelope."  (Sheila Prakash).

[Optimism]

I see what you are going for here -- the second law of thermal dynamics.

However, keep in mind, this bods true only for a closed system (and even this doesn't occur constantly -- the Gibb's paradox). This universe is an open system; therefore, the tendency towards entropy (disorder, or what you like to call chaos) isn't always a rule of thumb.

Keep in mind, anabolic processes occur constantly, giving rise to more complex structures enabling more complex functions. You are only looking at the broad scope of a human life-time. Sure, humans die, but during their lifespan, innumerable occurrences can be accounted for as the exact opposite of chaos. For you to grow from a child to an adult speaks for itself. For that window to even become a window, a child must become a man and the man must enable the rise of the construct itself. Without order, disorder would never have the possibility of being so (in this situation).

[zomniethe4]

I see what you are going for here -- the second law of thermal dynamics.

However, keep in mind, this bods true only for a closed system (and even this doesn't occur constantly -- the Gibb's paradox). This universe is an open system; therefore, the tendency towards entropy (disorder, or what you like to call chaos) isn't always a rule of thumb.

Keep in mind, anabolic processes occur constantly, giving rise to more complex structures enabling more complex functions. You are only looking at the broad scope of a human life-time. Sure, humans die, but during their lifespan, innumerable occurrences can be accounted for as the exact opposite of chaos. For you to grow from a child to an adult speaks for itself. For that window to even become a window, a child must become a man and the man must enable the rise of the construct itself. Without order, disorder would never have the possibility of being so (in this situation).

i concur

[hoang1001]

This is a tottaly legit thesis. I agree, due to the fact that it is true that once someone has gone torward one road, the person is unlikely to turn back. If you are at the full point it is hard to turn back, thus it is easy to turn to bad while good but hard to turn back to good while bad. Although this is not always the case, the chances are much higher in the favor of your thesis.

[Xrow]

I see what you are going for here -- the second law of thermal dynamics.

However, keep in mind, this bods true only for a closed system (and even this doesn't occur constantly -- the Gibb's paradox). This universe is an open system; therefore, the tendency towards entropy (disorder, or what you like to call chaos) isn't always a rule of thumb.

Keep in mind, anabolic processes occur constantly, giving rise to more complex structures enabling more complex functions. You are only looking at the broad scope of a human life-time. Sure, humans die, but during their lifespan, innumerable occurrences can be accounted for as the exact opposite of chaos. For you to grow from a child to an adult speaks for itself. For that window to even become a window, a child must become a man and the man must enable the rise of the construct itself. Without order, disorder would never have the possibility of being so (in this situation).

Uhm.
Not to disagree, because I don't.  But I'm not talking about the second law of thermodynamics, because as far as i know, it refers to an attained equilibrium.  Entropy is an extremely specific word that portrays only a small section of the concept I am trying to put forth.

I am saying that in nearly every aspect of life, and in the most elementary terms I have yet thought of, good goes to bad.  Health degenerates, governments degenerate, relationships degenerate.  As soon as your born, you begin to die.  As soon as the world was born, it began to die.



Dammit none of you people are arguing with me lol.
My fool sister says that disorder ALWAYS generates order.  She is close minded and stupid.  :].

[zomniethe4]

It does

[Optimism]

Uhm.
Not to disagree, because I don't.  But I'm not talking about the second law of thermodynamics, because as far as i know, it refers to an attained equilibrium.  Entropy is an extremely specific word that portrays only a small section of the concept I am trying to put forth.

I am saying that in nearly every aspect of life, and in the most elementary terms I have yet thought of, good goes to bad.  Health degenerates, governments degenerate, relationships degenerate.  As soon as your born, you begin to die.  As soon as the world was born, it began to die.



Dammit none of you people are arguing with me lol.
My fool sister says that disorder ALWAYS generates order.  She is close minded and stupid.  :].

Given your statement here, you are directly referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is an intricate part of this law.

For disorder to occur, order must establish itself. Good and bad are relative terms. Your perspective is different from that of another. Aging isn't necessarily viewed as bad by select individuals. Governments degenerate, but again, this can be argued as something good. Without the degradation of such governments, democracy would never have come to fruition, which is viewed as good by many. One could even argue that the falling apart of governments is required to find the perfect surrogate body to maintain a society. To die, one must live, again, giving substance to my aforementioned statement -- for disorder to occur, order must establish itself. Is death "bad"? According to many religious individuals, it is merely a stepping stone in an eternal conscious (you, yourself believe this). What you are failing to realize here is your usage of the terms "good" and "bad" are completely subjective and may differ from the opinion of another. This argument holds not argument, simply.

Your sister is brighter than you think. Failing governments give rise to more perfect governments. An aging dieing populous gives rise to an exponentially greater (and younger) populous through sexual reproduction (order acquired from disorder). From the death of worlds and solar systems comes the rebirth of worlds and solar systems, giving rise, through UGLY PONIES a new populous (order). With regard to relationships, pending on your own perspectives, disorderly conduct may give rise to a stronger love and an ever-increasing bond between one's partner. I myself am a testament to this statement. You are being the narrow minded individual here, not your sister. You've yet to acquire the holistic perspective required to understand such things by yourself. You still have a ways to go, King.

[Xrow]

Given your statement here, you are directly referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is an intricate part of this law.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
My apologies.  I thought, for some reason, that you were referring to Le Chatelier's Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium.
I agree, the second law of thermodynamics applies.

For disorder to occur, order must establish itself.
Although this is true, order does not generally establish itself.  Work is required to create an ideal government, and to maintain it.  Work is required to give birth, to make money, to acquire knowledge.  On the other hand, natural consequences tend to degenerate these things.  Miscarriages are becoming increasingly common, inherited deformities and diseases are as well.  The US has, in essence, spent itself into a recession.  Deterioration in nature has taken place ever-increasingly as well.
Good and bad are relative terms. Your perspective is different from that of another. Aging isn't necessarily viewed as bad by select individuals. Governments degenerate, but again, this can be argued as something good. Without the degradation of such governments, democracy would never have come to fruition, which is viewed as good by many. One could even argue that the falling apart of governments is required to find the perfect surrogate body to maintain a society. I agree that death can result in the betterment of life, but I do not believe that a utopian society exists outside of Heaven (Our opinions would wrestle over this matter until the sun failed to rise, so lets not get into it).  Because people are constantly flawed, therefore so are governments - such is life.
To die, one must live, again, giving substance to my aforementioned statement -- for disorder to occur, order must establish itself. Is death "bad"? According to many religious individuals, it is merely a stepping stone in an eternal conscious (you, yourself believe this).
Although this is true, many religions fear death as an eternal darkness.  An even greater number of religions see death as a bad thing because it is the end of ministry and conversion on earth.  The longer a person (such as a Christian) lives, the more lives they can affect and the more people will be converted.
What you are failing to realize here is your usage of the terms "good" and "bad" are completely subjective and may differ from the opinion of another. This argument holds not argument, simply.

Your sister is brighter than you think.
Eh, no, she only believes that because a crazy history teacher told her that.  Shes the type that would defend a thesis even if evidence of her wrongness was tattooed on her arm, just for the sake of being right.
Failing governments give rise to more perfect governments.
Better, not more perfect.  Possibly not even better.  No utopia exists on earth.
An aging dieing populous gives rise to an exponentially greater (and younger) populous through sexual reproduction (order acquired from disorder).
Well, in the extreme short term, this is true.  The next generation is now more healthy than the last, but how healthy are they really?  66% of minorities inherit type 2 diabetes, 33% of majorities inherit it.  It has increased close to 20% in both majorities and minorities since 1990.  On top of this, birth complications are becoming far more common.
The generations of today are far less healthy than their ancestors.  Life expectancy becomes increasingly shorter over time.  At about 3339 BC, a man named Methuselah was born.  He lived an unbelievably long life of 969 years before dying of natural causes.  Today the life expectancy of women in the US is 80.8, and is 75.6 for men.  That is a massive age difference in a relatively short period of time, especially for the Darwin-believing Atheist.
From the death of worlds and solar systems comes the rebirth of worlds and solar systems, giving rise, through UGLY PONIES I think it is comedic (and even cosmic) that this is the only non-vulgar censored word on these forums. a new populous (order).  Which then deteriorates over millions of years.. o.O
With regard to relationships, pending on your own perspectives, disorderly conduct may give rise to a stronger love and an ever-increasing bond between one's partner. I myself am a testament to this statement. Currently in America,  45% to 50% of first marriages end in divorce.  60% to 67% of second marriages end in divorce.  70% to 73% of third marriages end in divorce.  These are the highest divorce rates in the history of the world; relationships are failing more now than ever before.
On top of this, premarital sex in America is increasing and has been for decades.  Currently, studies show that 9 out of every 10 Americans have had premarital sex.  "Contrary to pop-culture wisdom, those who do choose to save sex for marriage are not doomed to a second-class sex life. Rather they typically report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and marital contentment. Moreover, early sexual experience has been linked to marital dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and greater incidence of Divorce" (Hooten).  Not only is immorality increasing throughout America, but it is ruining more relationships than ever, both before and after marriage.  Healthy relationships are becoming a thing of the past.
You are being the narrow minded individual here, not your sister. You've yet to acquire the holistic perspective required to understand such things by yourself. You still have a ways to go, King.
I believe I understand all that my thesis statement encompasses, I am not sure what else you are referring to.

[Kevin]

The half that is explained in the body makes sense, the other half is really common knowledge as well as a proper IQ level.

I do agree with the statement, although I don't believe 100% of it.

[Optimism]

Given your statement here, you are directly referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is an intricate part of this law.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
My apologies.  I thought, for some reason, that you were referring to Le Chatelier's Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium.
I agree, the second law of thermodynamics applies.

Firstly, the universe is an open system, not a closed system; therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply per its definition. Simply because of this fact, your entire thesis is invalid regardless of what I say from this point forward. For catabolic processes to occur, anabolic processes must assert themselves firstly. In other words, order must arise for disorder to occur. I'll keep repeating this statement until you finally understand this. Again, this sole statement disembowels your entire thesis forever and always, regardless of whatever subjective spin you wish to apply to it.

For disorder to occur, order must establish itself.
Although this is true, order does not generally establish itself.  Work is required to create an ideal government, and to maintain it.  Work is required to give birth, to make money, to acquire knowledge.  On the other hand, natural consequences tend to degenerate these things.  Miscarriages are becoming increasingly common, inherited deformities and diseases are as well.  The US has, in essence, spent itself into a recession.  Deterioration in nature has taken place ever-increasingly as well.

No. Before you start speaking out your ass, take a second to interpret my statement. Governments don't arise out of chaos; governments establish themselves through order. The opposite of a governing body is anarchy; given the world is no where near a pure state of anarchy, order has found a way to flourish. You stated the world always trends towards disorder. No, it does not. Governments fail; however, my point maintains itself; with this failing, more "perfect" governments arise. If you fail to believe this, simply wiki the Nordic Model. Life expectancy has exponentially increased over the last 100 years. This, in itself, is the exact opposite of your thesis. The drive for human betterment can be considered order. You are far over-simplifying something that is far more intricate than you lead on. For every fact you pick out, I'll pick out another contradicting it.

Good and bad are relative terms. Your perspective is different from that of another. Aging isn't necessarily viewed as bad by select individuals. Governments degenerate, but again, this can be argued as something good. Without the degradation of such governments, democracy would never have come to fruition, which is viewed as good by many. One could even argue that the falling apart of governments is required to find the perfect surrogate body to maintain a society. I agree that death can result in the betterment of life, but I do not believe that a utopian society exists outside of Heaven (Our opinions would wrestle over this matter until the sun failed to rise, so lets not get into it).  Because people are constantly flawed, therefore so are governments - such is life.

Your thesis said nothing of perfect order, merely disorder always following throughout life and the world. Well, my statement above contradicts this yet again...you agree in your own statement that order exists here, but, because it doesn't conform with your thought, you refute it because it is not "perfect" order. I'm sorry, King, but it is order none-the-less.

To die, one must live, again, giving substance to my aforementioned statement -- for disorder to occur, order must establish itself. Is death "bad"? According to many religious individuals, it is merely a stepping stone in an eternal conscious (you, yourself believe this).
Although this is true, many religions fear death as an eternal darkness.  An even greater number of religions see death as a bad thing because it is the end of ministry and conversion on earth.  The longer a person (such as a Christian) lives, the more lives they can affect and the more people will be converted.

My point remains -- order has established itself, not disorder. Religions that adhere to reincarnation always contribute to order, whether they are born as an ant or a human, their role in life's progress ceases to extinguish itself -- continual order from disorder. If I were Hindu, I would make this point to discredit you. Again, the aforementioned isn't opinion of my own, but simply an alternate perspective that could pose as an orderly one. Basically, I've made an attempt to be objective, which you should have done before constructing this silly thesis.

What you are failing to realize here is your usage of the terms "good" and "bad" are completely subjective and may differ from the opinion of another. This argument holds no argument, simply.

Your sister is brighter than you think.
Eh, no, she only believes that because a crazy history teacher told her that.  Shes the type that would defend a thesis even if evidence of her wrongness was tattooed on her arm, just for the sake of being right.
Failing governments give rise to more perfect governments.
Better, not more perfect.  Possibly not even better.  No utopia exists on earth.

Again, have you changed your thesis? The point is, order has been established.

An aging dieing populous gives rise to an exponentially greater (and younger) populous through sexual reproduction (order acquired from disorder).
Well, in the extreme short term, this is true.  The next generation is now more healthy than the last, but how healthy are they really?  66% of minorities inherit type 2 diabetes, 33% of majorities inherit it.  It has increased close to 20% in both majorities and minorities since 1990.  On top of this, birth complications are becoming far more common.
The generations of today are far less healthy than their ancestors.  Life expectancy becomes increasingly shorter over time.  At about 3339 BC, a man named Methuselah was born.  He lived an unbelievably long life of 969 years before dying of natural causes.  Today the life expectancy of women in the US is 80.8, and is 75.6 for men.  That is a massive age difference in a relatively short period of time, especially for the Darwin-believing Atheist.

You are a ****ing idiot. Firstly, don't bring biblical references into any ****ing debate. Ever. This alone discredits anything and everything you will say from this point forward within any intellectual forum. No life expectancy has ever been validated anywhere near 1000 years old. I can't believe you made this statement, and for the sole purpose of trying to argue your thesis. I dare you to do this on a collegiate paper. Fat ****ing "F". Now, here come the facts: life expectancy has increased over the last 100 years due to an increase in sanitary conditions (plumbing), vaccines, the genetic modification of wheat (the staple diet of many third world countries), providing a greater nutrition/calorie ratio upon intake, etc. The increase in the world's life expectancy discredits this facet of, and, through extrapolation, your entire statement. Its hilarious how when I use religious belief against you, you defend it and say, well that is the belief of someone else. But when you attempt to utilize it for your argument's advantage, you pull scriptural "facts" to back your thesis. This is a terrible fallacy and, take my word, should never be done again. Fail, King.
From the death of worlds and solar systems comes the rebirth of worlds and solar systems, giving rise, through UGLY PONIES I think it is comedic (and even cosmic) that this is the only non-vulgar censored word on these forums. a new populous (order).  Which then deteriorates over millions of years.. o.O

Yea, your at a loss for words here, aren't you? Order must establish itself for deterioration to occur.

With regard to relationships, pending on your own perspectives, disorderly conduct may give rise to a stronger love and an ever-increasing bond between one's partner. I myself am a testament to this statement. Currently in America,  45% to 50% of first marriages end in divorce.  60% to 67% of second marriages end in divorce.  70% to 73% of third marriages end in divorce.  These are the highest divorce rates in the history of the world; relationships are failing more now than ever before.
On top of this, premarital sex in America is increasing and has been for decades.  Currently, studies show that 9 out of every 10 Americans have had premarital sex.  "Contrary to pop-culture wisdom, those who do choose to save sex for marriage are not doomed to a second-class sex life. Rather they typically report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and marital contentment. Moreover, early sexual experience has been linked to marital dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and greater incidence of Divorce" (Hooten).  Not only is immorality increasing throughout America, but it is ruining more relationships than ever, both before and after marriage.  Healthy relationships are becoming a thing of the past.

At this point, I'm just baffled at the idiocy of your argument. The sole fact that relationships, through hardship, maintain themselves is a testament to order prevailing, defeating your failure of a thesis yet again. Your closed mindedness on this matter is just unbelievable. SO WHAT; a divorce occurs. What if this divorce ends in these two individuals finding true happiness within another relationship? Do we simply stop at the first divorce? If one is content within their life, should we call this order? Should we gauge true disorder on the suicide rate? Surely, the vast majority of individuals don't commit suicide, so bring that statistic over to my side of the debate! You are drawing the line to what you perceive disorder and order to be. In other words, what you perceive good and bad to be. I made this point earlier. You allow your own subjective opinions, as evidence by your religious "facts" and what you perceive to be good and bad to corrupt your thinking and thus your thesis. You're far too subjective and too closed minded. You lack the objectivity to substantiate your thesis to the point of credulity. And, if you still fail to agree, then refer to the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. I for one, after viewing this rebuttal, refuse to comment further.

You are being the narrow minded individual here, not your sister. You've yet to acquire the holistic perspective required to understand such things by yourself. You still have a ways to go, King.
I believe I understand all that my thesis statement encompasses, I am not sure what else you are referring to.

Thesis statement:
Order has the tendency to transition towards disorder.

My argument:
Throughout the universe, no matter religion nor ethnicity nor race nor any other impartial factor, order has the tendency to degenerate towards chaos.  This reality is seen everywhere in nature: life becomes death, new buildings become old and deteriorate, wealth becomes poverty.

Death becomes life, old buildings become new buildings, poverty becomes wealth.

An example of this is the Broken Window theory.  In essence, the Broken Window theory states that if a broken window on a building is not promptly fixed, miscreants will converge over time and will break more windows.

Baby-->adult-->educated to skilled task-->window is created.

Without order (window tiler), disorder doesn't have the possibility to occur (window breaking).


In essence, if this were a closed system, none of us would exist to even have this conversation. In other words in an open system where the energy cycles can be used freely, order pervades itself only to become disorder and order once again. It is a never-ending cycle, of which, order always finds a way to substantiate itself over disorder -- our existence is testament to this fact (UGLY PONIES is a testament to this fact). The energy cycle is a testament to this fact. All metabolic and anabolic cycles are a testament to this fact, from the organic construction of Pyruvate through Glycolysis to the recycling of carbon through the Kreb's Cycle.

Discuss.

Thesis, butt****ed

[Iridion]

Given your statement here, you are directly referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is an intricate part of this law.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
My apologies.  I thought, for some reason, that you were referring to Le Chatelier's Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium.
I agree, the second law of thermodynamics applies.

Firstly, the universe is an open system, not a closed system; therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply per its definition. Simply because of this fact, your entire thesis is invalid regardless of what I say from this point forward. For catabolic processes to occur, anabolic processes must assert themselves firstly. In other words, order must arise for disorder to occur. I'll keep repeating this statement until you finally understand this. Again, this sole statement disembowels your entire thesis forever and always, regardless of whatever subjective spin you wish to apply to it.

For disorder to occur, order must establish itself.
Although this is true, order does not generally establish itself.  Work is required to create an ideal government, and to maintain it.  Work is required to give birth, to make money, to acquire knowledge.  On the other hand, natural consequences tend to degenerate these things.  Miscarriages are becoming increasingly common, inherited deformities and diseases are as well.  The US has, in essence, spent itself into a recession.  Deterioration in nature has taken place ever-increasingly as well.

No. Before you start speaking out your ass, take a second to interpret my statement. Governments don't arise out of chaos; governments establish themselves through order. The opposite of a governing body is anarchy; given the world is no where near a pure state of anarchy, order has found a way to flourish. You stated the world always trends towards disorder. No, it does not. Governments fail; however, my point maintains itself; with this failing, more "perfect" governments arise. If you fail to believe this, simply wiki the Nordic Model. Life expectancy has exponentially increased over the last 100 years. This, in itself, is the exact opposite of your thesis. The drive for human betterment can be considered order. You are far over-simplifying something that is far more intricate than you lead on. For every fact you pick out, I'll pick out another contradicting it.

Good and bad are relative terms. Your perspective is different from that of another. Aging isn't necessarily viewed as bad by select individuals. Governments degenerate, but again, this can be argued as something good. Without the degradation of such governments, democracy would never have come to fruition, which is viewed as good by many. One could even argue that the falling apart of governments is required to find the perfect surrogate body to maintain a society. I agree that death can result in the betterment of life, but I do not believe that a utopian society exists outside of Heaven (Our opinions would wrestle over this matter until the sun failed to rise, so lets not get into it).  Because people are constantly flawed, therefore so are governments - such is life.

Your thesis said nothing of perfect order, merely disorder always following throughout life and the world. Well, my statement above contradicts this yet again...you agree in your own statement that order exists here, but, because it doesn't conform with your thought, you refute it because it is not "perfect" order. I'm sorry, King, but it is order none-the-less.

To die, one must live, again, giving substance to my aforementioned statement -- for disorder to occur, order must establish itself. Is death "bad"? According to many religious individuals, it is merely a stepping stone in an eternal conscious (you, yourself believe this).
Although this is true, many religions fear death as an eternal darkness.  An even greater number of religions see death as a bad thing because it is the end of ministry and conversion on earth.  The longer a person (such as a Christian) lives, the more lives they can affect and the more people will be converted.

My point remains -- order has established itself, not disorder. Religions that adhere to reincarnation always contribute to order, whether they are born as an ant or a human, their role in life's progress ceases to extinguish itself -- continual order from disorder. If I were Hindu, I would make this point to discredit you. Again, the aforementioned isn't opinion of my own, but simply an alternate perspective that could pose as an orderly one. Basically, I've made an attempt to be objective, which you should have done before constructing this silly thesis.

What you are failing to realize here is your usage of the terms "good" and "bad" are completely subjective and may differ from the opinion of another. This argument holds no argument, simply.

Your sister is brighter than you think.
Eh, no, she only believes that because a crazy history teacher told her that.  Shes the type that would defend a thesis even if evidence of her wrongness was tattooed on her arm, just for the sake of being right.
Failing governments give rise to more perfect governments.
Better, not more perfect.  Possibly not even better.  No utopia exists on earth.

Again, have you changed your thesis? The point is, order has been established.

An aging dieing populous gives rise to an exponentially greater (and younger) populous through sexual reproduction (order acquired from disorder).
Well, in the extreme short term, this is true.  The next generation is now more healthy than the last, but how healthy are they really?  66% of minorities inherit type 2 diabetes, 33% of majorities inherit it.  It has increased close to 20% in both majorities and minorities since 1990.  On top of this, birth complications are becoming far more common.
The generations of today are far less healthy than their ancestors.  Life expectancy becomes increasingly shorter over time.  At about 3339 BC, a man named Methuselah was born.  He lived an unbelievably long life of 969 years before dying of natural causes.  Today the life expectancy of women in the US is 80.8, and is 75.6 for men.  That is a massive age difference in a relatively short period of time, especially for the Darwin-believing Atheist.

You are a ****ing idiot. Firstly, don't bring biblical references into any ****ing debate. Ever. This alone discredits anything and everything you will say from this point forward within any intellectual forum. No life expectancy has ever been validated anywhere near 1000 years old. I can't believe you made this statement, and for the sole purpose of trying to argue your thesis. I dare you to do this on a collegiate paper. Fat ****ing "F". Now, here come the facts: life expectancy has increased over the last 100 years due to an increase in sanitary conditions (plumbing), vaccines, the genetic modification of wheat (the staple diet of many third world countries), providing a greater nutrition/calorie ratio upon intake, etc. The increase in the world's life expectancy discredits this facet of, and, through extrapolation, your entire statement. Its hilarious how when I use religious belief against you, you defend it and say, well that is the belief of someone else. But when you attempt to utilize it for your argument's advantage, you pull scriptural "facts" to back your thesis. This is a terrible fallacy and, take my word, should never be done again. Fail, King.
From the death of worlds and solar systems comes the rebirth of worlds and solar systems, giving rise, through UGLY PONIES I think it is comedic (and even cosmic) that this is the only non-vulgar censored word on these forums. a new populous (order).  Which then deteriorates over millions of years.. o.O

Yea, your at a loss for words here, aren't you? Order must establish itself for deterioration to occur.

With regard to relationships, pending on your own perspectives, disorderly conduct may give rise to a stronger love and an ever-increasing bond between one's partner. I myself am a testament to this statement. Currently in America,  45% to 50% of first marriages end in divorce.  60% to 67% of second marriages end in divorce.  70% to 73% of third marriages end in divorce.  These are the highest divorce rates in the history of the world; relationships are failing more now than ever before.
On top of this, premarital sex in America is increasing and has been for decades.  Currently, studies show that 9 out of every 10 Americans have had premarital sex.  "Contrary to pop-culture wisdom, those who do choose to save sex for marriage are not doomed to a second-class sex life. Rather they typically report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and marital contentment. Moreover, early sexual experience has been linked to marital dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and greater incidence of Divorce" (Hooten).  Not only is immorality increasing throughout America, but it is ruining more relationships than ever, both before and after marriage.  Healthy relationships are becoming a thing of the past.

At this point, I'm just baffled at the idiocy of your argument. The sole fact that relationships, through hardship, maintain themselves is a testament to order prevailing, defeating your failure of a thesis yet again. Your closed mindedness on this matter is just unbelievable. SO WHAT; a divorce occurs. What if this divorce ends in these two individuals finding true happiness within another relationship? Do we simply stop at the first divorce? If one is content within their life, should we call this order? Should we gauge true disorder on the suicide rate? Surely, the vast majority of individuals don't commit suicide, so bring that statistic over to my side of the debate! You are drawing the line to what you perceive disorder and order to be. In other words, what you perceive good and bad to be. I made this point earlier. You allow your own subjective opinions, as evidence by your religious "facts" and what you perceive to be good and bad to corrupt your thinking and thus your thesis. You're far too subjective and too closed minded. You lack the objectivity to substantiate your thesis to the point of credulity. And, if you still fail to agree, then refer to the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. I for one, after viewing this rebuttal, refuse to comment further.

You are being the narrow minded individual here, not your sister. You've yet to acquire the holistic perspective required to understand such things by yourself. You still have a ways to go, King.
I believe I understand all that my thesis statement encompasses, I am not sure what else you are referring to.

THESAURURSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Allie]

I drop out of this debate.

[Optimism]

Re-reading my post, I am too ****-like.

[Xrow]

the universe is an open system, not a closed system

Proof.

I drop out of this debate.

Same.

[Optimism]

Proof.

Same.

Sigh...

For the sake of facilitating your understanding of this matter -- put a plant in a vacuum -- no air, no light, no matter. It dies and decays with no hope of regeneration (THIS is the second law of thermodynamics in action -- a closed system). Put this plant on earth with sunlight (photosynthesis [energy] -- an open system [the universe]). It flourishes. The second law does not apply here.

If your thesis was true, you wouldn't be here to respond to this, nor would anything else, meaning, your thesis is completely erroneous.

[Iridion]

Sigh...

For the sake of facilitating your understanding of this matter -- put a plant in a vacuum -- no air, no light, no matter. It dies and decays with no hope of regeneration (THIS is the second law of thermodynamics in action -- a closed system). Put this plant on earth with sunlight (photosynthesis [energy] -- an open system [the universe]). It flourishes. The second law does not apply here.

If your thesis was true, you wouldn't be here to respond to this, nor would anything else, meaning, your thesis is completely erroneous.

but outside of the earth, in the open universe, there's no air(it isn't correct to say "air" but w/e) and matter then earth is an open system and the universe is a closed system or am i wrong?

btw how can a vacuum have nothing inside

[Xrow]

Well, Opti, just because the earth is an open system doesn't mean the universe is.
And me and Allor have already established that nothing doesn't exist. There is no such thing as nothing. Therefore there is something in a vacuume.

And my understanding of this matter is fine. 

Just because the universe deteriorates doesn't mean it does so constantly, rapidly or irreversibly.  There is no reason to believe that the deterioration of reality would cause my untimely death, and no evidence to support it.

[Optimism]

Well, Opti, just because the earth is an open system doesn't mean the universe is.
And me and Allor have already established that nothing doesn't exist. There is no such thing as nothing. Therefore there is something in a vacuume.

And my understanding of this matter is fine.  

Just because the universe deteriorates doesn't mean it does so constantly, rapidly or irreversibly.  There is no reason to believe that the deterioration of reality would cause my untimely death, and no evidence to support it.

What?

\facepalm.

As for the second noted text, I never made this claim and I fail to understand the connection you are attempting to make there.

[Xrow]

What?

\facepalm.

As for the second noted text, I never made this claim and I fail to understand the connection you are attempting to make there.

In essence, if this were a closed system, none of us would exist to even have this conversation.

/faceshotgun
Do you even read what you post?

the universe is an open system, not a closed system

Well, Mr. ThesaurusRex, can you prove the universe is an open system?

For an open system to occur, it must occur so in finite space.
Prove the universe is finite.

For an open system to occur, there must be the input of energy from a source outside of the open system.
Prove there is someone or something outside the universe that provides energy to it.

For and open system to occur, there must be a method of retaining a portion of that energy for use by the open system.
(An example of this would be the earths atmosphere, which traps energy).
Prove there is, in essence, an atmosphere that surrounds the universe.
(Keep in mind that space is, in essence, the lack of everything.  Therefore this universal atmosphere must exist with essentially nothing to sustain it).

Go ahead and prove your oh-so-righteous point, Optor.

[Optimism]

/faceshotgun
Do you even read what you post?

Well, Mr. ThesaurusRex, can you prove the universe is an open system?

For an open system to occur, it must occur so in finite space.
Prove the universe is finite.

For an open system to occur, there must be the input of energy from a source outside of the open system.
Prove there is someone or something outside the universe that provides energy to it.

For and open system to occur, there must be a method of retaining a portion of that energy for use by the open system.
(An example of this would be the earths atmosphere, which traps energy).
Prove there is, in essence, an atmosphere that surrounds the universe.
(Keep in mind that space is, in essence, the lack of everything.  Therefore this universal atmosphere must exist with essentially nothing to sustain it).

Go ahead and prove your oh-so-righteous point, Optor.

I refuse to continue this debate because you refuse to self-research and understand the very basic concepts needed to continue this debate with myself and understand your erroneous mindset. Each and every single question you've posed here has been proved extensively within the scientific community. Open a ****ing book and start reading. You're similar to a thousand-piece puzzle. You throw out each of these ideas without any sense of how these ideas interconnect to each other. I'm not going to put you together for yourself; however, I'll get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_%28systems_theory%29

[zomniethe4]

universe does not exist

[Optimism]

universe does not exist

This is all a dream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXnzHCjKIFc

Good song.

[zomniethe4]

the universe is everything that exist
everything exist except the universe therefore the universe does not exist

[Xrow]

Rage much?

Each and every single question you've posed here has been proved extensively within the scientific community. Open a ****ing book and start reading.

First, you mean proven.

Second, common sense says that these concepts haven't been proven.  Why?  BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN TO THE EDGE OF THE DAMN UNIVERSE TO SEE ENERGY DEPARTING FROM IT.  /facerocketlauncher.

Third, just because some olda*s scientist in one of your bullheaded college classes says "This is absolute truth!!" doesn't mean it is, sir.
Close-minded methods of reasoning generate a static reality, not a dynamic one.  "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Einstine.
I am open to new beliefs, but not because some college child tells me its fact.  You have put forth absolutely no proof to back up any of your statements.  Should have seen that one coming.

Fourth, I have read 9 books since September first, so maybe YOU should crack some pages.

And honestly, I don't give a rats a*s about the universe being a closed or open system.  Obviously I wasn't referring to naught and the aught it holds.  I also don't particularly care about the second level of thermodynamics, it is merely a big word that describes a small concept.

Maybe you should go back to high school.

[zomniethe4]

universe does not exist

[Xrow]

universe does not exist

Everything exists.

[zomniethe4]

Nothing does not exist

[Optimism]

Rage much?

First, you mean proven.

Second, common sense says that these concepts haven't been proven.  Why?  BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN TO THE EDGE OF THE DAMN UNIVERSE TO SEE ENERGY DEPARTING FROM IT.  /facerocketlauncher.

If I were to go to the edge of the universe and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings. If these surroundings were to change in an identical manner, then the rock would behave in accordance to this change. For instance tossing a rock near a planet with gravitational force x results in displacement y. Tossing the rock 200 light years away near another planet with a gravitational force z (equal to the of x) would result in displacement w (equal to that of y). Any point's physical laws are considered a microcosm of any location within the universe. Believe it or not, one doesn't have to be at a location to gauge select laws.

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/p/PhysicsLaws.htm

Third, just because some olda*s scientist in one of your bullheaded college classes says "This is absolute truth!!" doesn't mean it is, sir.
Close-minded methods of reasoning generate a static reality, not a dynamic one.  "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Einstine.
I am open to new beliefs, but not because some college child tells me its fact.  You have put forth absolutely no proof to back up any of your statements.  Should have seen that one coming.

Fourth, I have read 9 books since September first, so maybe YOU should crack some pages.

And honestly, I don't give a rats a*s about the universe being a closed or open system.  Obviously I wasn't referring to naught and the aught it holds.  I also don't particularly care about the second level of thermodynamics, it is merely a big word that describes a small concept.

Maybe you should go back to high school.

Regarding "truth" and "untruth"...

Everything we know is based from philosophy -- even science (the philosophy of science). Those who practice the scientific method would agree with this statement; however, they would find it unpractical in the method which they use to provide tangible (in some form), repetitious experiments that provide validity to their hypotheses. You can argue what you believe truth to be all you like, but at some point, we must come to an agreement as to how we gauge truth. If I were to mentally construct a gun and fire it at you once within a 10 minute time frame, the likelihood of you being able to tell me when I fire this gun is up for grabs (is it real; does this have consequences for yourself?). Now, if I were to put a real gun in my hand and fire this gun at you (not killing or hitting you), you could surely tell me when this gun is fired, if fired within the aforesaid 10 minute time frame. If I were to aim it at you and fire, would it have consequences similar to that of the mentally constructed gun? No. In other words, whatever mental construct (ideas, theories, etc.) you propose has no bearing on myself until it is tangibly reproducible in a way that we both can understand. This is what is considered truth. Certainly, god isn't this. It is purely a subjective belief based on one's mental concepts that cannot be validated through reproducibility or through tangible means (objectivity). Now you seem to have some trouble dealing credibility to what science has provided to this world and its populous and thus its laws. Look around you -- the advancement is undeniable. At one point do you quit discrediting science? The only reason you do this is to provide what you believe to be a backing to your argument. It certainly is rather evident and childish. If you can't meet me at common ground to gauge what is real and what isn't real within this universe, then you sir, aren't worth having a conversation with. The adult mentality simply isn't there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtjLSa50uk&feature=player_embedded

[Xrow]

"If I were to go to the edge of the universe but you can't and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings So basically, if you throw a rock off of the edge of the universe (assuming the universe has an edge although there is no supporting evidence), it would behave the same way as another rock being thrown off the edge of the universe?  Damn, Opti.  Gotta give you props on that one. If these surroundings were to change in an identical manner, then the rock would behave in accordance to this change So 50mph in the US is the same speed as 50mph in Germany?  Your on a roll bro!. For instance tossing a rock near a planet with gravitational force x results in displacement y. Tossing the rock 200 light years away near another planet with a gravitational force z (equal to the of x) would result in displacement w (equal to that of y) Sweet now find me 2 planets with absolutely equal gravitational pull.  Then I guess you could find me two spots on the edge of the universe that are the absolute equal distance from two equally placed planets with equal gravitational pull. Any point's physical laws are considered a microcosm of any location within the universe. Believe it or not, one doesn't have to be at a location to gauge select laws."

I suppose I must reassert that no man has been to the edge of the universe to throw a rock, nor in any equal environment.  Not even Isaac Newton, Opti.  He was brilliant, but he wasn't absolute.

"If you can't meet me at common ground to gauge what is real and what isn't real within this universe, then you sir, aren't worth having a conversation with."
L
M
F
A
O,
sir.
"We can compromise, as long as you see it my way." -Obama
Do you realize that you haven't budged an inch during any of our debates, even when its cripplingly obvious that your wrong?
Yet I have.
Opti, I surmise that you lack a mature and adult mindset and that you are a close-minded, thick-headed college child who has yet to live outside himself.

[Optimism]

"If I were to go to the edge of the universe but you can't and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings So basically, if you throw a rock off of the edge of the universe (assuming the universe has an edge although there is no supporting evidence), it would behave the same way as another rock being thrown off the edge of the universe?  Damn, Opti.  Gotta give you props on that one.. If these surroundings were to change in an identical manner, then the rock would behave in accordance to this change So 50mph in the US is the same speed as 50mph in Germany?  Your on a roll bro!. For instance tossing a rock near a planet with gravitational force x results in displacement y. Tossing the rock 200 light years away near another planet with a gravitational force z (equal to the of x) would result in displacement w (equal to that of y) Sweet now find me 2 planets with absolutely equal gravitational pull.  Then I guess you could find me two spots on the edge of the universe that are the absolute equal distance from two equally placed planets with equal gravitational pull.. Any point's physical laws are considered a microcosm of any location within the universe. Believe it or not, one doesn't have to be at a location to gauge select laws."

I suppose I must reassert that no man has been to the edge of the universe to throw a rock, nor in any equal environment.  Not even Isaac Newton, Opti.  He was brilliant, but he wasn't absolute.

http://i.imgur.com/0fgeX.png

Nice. As I said, adult conversation impossible.

Regarding "truth" and "untruth"...

Everything we know is based from philosophy -- even science (the philosophy of science). Those who practice the scientific method would agree with this statement; however, they would find it unpractical in the method which they use to provide tangible (in some form), repetitious experiments that provide validity to their hypotheses. You can argue what you believe truth to be all you like, but at some point, we must come to an agreement as to how we gauge truth. If I were to mentally construct a gun and fire it at you once within a 10 minute time frame, the likelihood of you being able to tell me when I fire this gun is up for grabs (is it real; does this have consequences for yourself?). Now, if I were to put a real gun in my hand and fire this gun at you (not killing or hitting you), you could surely tell me when this gun is fired, if fired within the aforesaid 10 minute time frame. If I were to aim it at you and fire, would it have consequences similar to that of the mentally constructed gun? No. In other words, whatever mental construct (ideas, theories, etc.) you propose has no bearing on myself until it is tangibly reproducible in a way that we both can understand. This is what is considered truth. Certainly, god isn't this. It is purely a subjective belief based on one's mental concepts that cannot be validated through reproducibility or through tangible means (objectivity). Now you seem to have some trouble dealing credibility to what science has provided to this world and its populous and thus its laws. Look around you -- the advancement is undeniable. At one point do you quit discrediting science? The only reason you do this is to provide what you believe to be a backing to your argument. It certainly is rather evident and childish. If you can't meet me at common ground to gauge what is real and what isn't real within this universe, then you sir, aren't worth having a conversation with. The adult mentality simply isn't there.

Incase you missed it the first time, try reading again, regarding "absolute truth"...

[Xrow]

^ So your giving up?

L
M
F
A
O,
sir.
"We can compromise, as long as you see it my way." -Obama
Do you realize that you haven't budged an inch during any of our debates, even when its cripplingly obvious that your wrong?
Yet I have.
Opti, I surmise that you lack a mature and adult mindset and that you are a close-minded, thick-headed college child who has yet to live outside himself.

[Optimism]

^ So your giving up?

I'm waiting for you to meet me at a platform at which we can both objectively view a concept and discuss it without the philisophical "what if".

My platform: the scientific method -- the reason you are typing on that laptop of yours; the reason medication exist; the reason transportation exists; the reason nuclear power sources exist, etc., of which, you deny outright. Your platform? Yet to be spoken of. Your aforementioned theory's validity? Torn apart.

[Xrow]

I'm waiting for you to meet me at a platform at which we can both objectively view a concept and discuss it without the philisophical "what if".

"We can compromise, as long as you see it my way." -Obama

Torn apart.

You just gave me your opinion about your own opinion.
That statement, therefore, holds no meaning.
Most of your arguments were merely concepts created by open-minded men.

Open your brain, Opti.  Just because one man said something doesn't mean its absolute.

[Optimism]

...and that has what correlation to this discussion? If you can propose a platform in which we can gauge "truth" and "untruth", then by all means, you have the possibility of continuing this discussion with myself. If you fail to propose a method of equal reliability to my own (keep in mind, the method I've proposed is the reason you're not freezing to death outside at this very moment), then either submit to my own and we can begin here (really, end) or you can keep looking like a complete fool spatting nonsense left and right.

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

My "opinion" is garnished by the provided link -- I tend to avoid these. You on the other hand, are ridden with them.

Regarding "absolutism". I guarantee if I drop two objects simultaneously they will hit an end at the same time, falling 9.8 m/s to that end. Guaranteed. I also guarantee I am raising my right hand this very moment. Now my left. Now my right again. I can guarantee you that people die; that people are alive. And if you want to get nit-picky, please refer back to the following:

...and that has what correlation to this discussion? If you can propose a platform in which we can gauge "truth" and "untruth", then by all means, you have the possibility of continuing this discussion with myself. If you fail to propose a method of equal reliability to my own (keep in mind, the method I've proposed is the reason you're not freezing to death outside at this very moment), then either submit to my own and we can begin here (really, end) or you can keep looking like a complete fool spatting nonsense left and right.

[Xrow]

...and that has what correlation to this discussion? Stay on topic here buddy, discrediting your opinionated opinion has all the correlation in the world to disproving you. If you can propose a platform in which we can gauge "truth" and "untruth", then by all means, you have the possibility of continuing this discussion with myself. As I am not sure where that statement even came from, or what correlation that and most of your other "arguments" has to my initial discussion, I will not answer it. If you fail to propose a method of equal reliability to my own (keep in mind, the method I've proposed is the reason you're not freezing to death outside at this very moment), then either submit to my own and we can begin here (really, end) or you can keep looking like a complete fool spatting nonsense left and right. I don't need to, kiddo. And a complete fool to one is an exemplar to another, and a martyr to still another. I guess next time I have a conversation with you, I'll just quote the renowned in place of my own independent thought.

[Xrow]

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

My "opinion" is garnished by the provided link -- I tend to avoid these. You on the other hand, are ridden with them.

Now your just making a damned fool of yourself.
I haven't posted one "garnishment" in the form of a link TO ANOTHER PERSON'S THOUGHTS, and this is - I believe - your third.

/growabrain

[zomniethe4]

This is getting intense. *Gets passed a towel*

[Optimism]

Read my edit. Those aren't "another person's thoughts" -- they are the thoughts of any man who is well versed in logical debate. Period. We are all imitations of another in some form.

*walks away satisfied that king remains as ignorant as the first day we met*

You realize you are having a heart attack -- your medication is lying on the counter (beta blockers / nitrates). What do you do? Hrmm...



Night.

[Xrow]

That told me nothing of value.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein
Einstein says your being close-minded.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." -Einstein
Einstein says I'm truly intelligent.  He also says you aren't, as all you have done is source others.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." -Einstein
Einstein says your still sitting on B, wondering how I got to X.


Hmm, didn't Einstein have something to do with physics..?

[Iridion]

u guys mad lol

[mmiicc0]

u guys mad lol

You have to admit, they are quite funny. 

[Optimism]

That told me nothing of value.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein
Einstein says your being close-minded.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." -Einstein
Einstein says I'm truly intelligent.  He also says you aren't, as all you have done is source others.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." -Einstein
Einstein says your still sitting on B, wondering how I got to X.


Hmm, didn't Einstein have something to do with physics..?

But...I have an imagination; quite a vivid one. Point nullified. For you to assume that any human being lacks imagination, results directly back to the previous link. Your arguments are full of fallacy -- continuously.

A drunk on the street tells you he is seeing pink elephants (this man in what many would call, a "bum"). Quite an imagination he has there. Now, ask him to derive an equation. A true sign of intelligence indeed. Its clear that you've applied these quotations to substantiate a sole point; however, these quotations have a plethora of implications that can be used several different ways. In my opinion, one who claims either ends of the spectrum of belief lacks "imagination". As you know, I am agnostic, which enables ample imagination regarding the origin of the universe. Here is an example of a rather crude encounter between two opposing mindsets regarding creations origins. I don't commend the way Dawkins conducted himself, albeit correct, in the least. The man speaking to him is human and at the very lease, deserves respect; something that wasn't given:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfcYRKk0sa8&feature=player_embedded

Now, back to the point I will make, eventually.

You realize you are having a heart attack -- your medication is lying on the counter (beta blockers / nitrates). What do you do? Hrmm...

We both know what "truth" is within this world -- it is substantiated through the tangibles (you would take this medication that is derived from my proposed method of ascertaining truth), whether you wish to agree or not, I could care not .  You avoiding these critical points for this conversation to move forward is rather pathetic. If any half-witted individual views this conversation, he or she would immediately understand the fallacy within your argument...RED HERRING

Lastly, within any research paper, what must be done to prevent academic misconduct from occurring? The 10,000 dollar answer: sourcing. Siting and providing links is simply a means to facilitate your understanding of the matter. Moreover, when I wish to learn something I am vaguely familiar with or have no knowledge of what-so-ever, I research. If this knowledge is being applied in a paper, I source that knowledge that I previously lacked. Since you seem rather unwilling to look things up yourself, or take my word for it, I provide links for you. I will continue to do so.

Follow my link and better yourself. I'm done here XD.

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

[Iridion]

i decided to call you optisaurus

[Optimism]

i decided to call you optisaurus

l
m
f
a
o

>.>.

[thugzy]

some of u guys are fked in the head

[Iridion]

l
m
f
a
o

>.>.

and a new account optits

[Xrow]

HERE WE GO WOO

But...I have an imagination; quite a vivid one. [I'm not seein it. I have seen a lot of other peoples opinions though - thus the three links you've posted so far.] Point nullified. [Iiiiiin your opinion.] For you to assume that any human being lacks imagination, results directly back to the previous link. [At least your partially sourcing them] Your arguments are full of fallacy -- continuously. [Yeah, you like to talk out your ass, but your ass always lacks pertinent examples and uses a thesaurus far too often.]

A drunk on the street tells you he is seeing pink elephants (this man is what many would call a "bum"). Quite an imagination he has there. Now, ask him to derive an equation. A true sign of intelligence indeed. Its clear that you've applied these quotations to substantiate a sole point; however, these quotations have a plethora of implications that can be used several different ways. In my opinion, one who claims either ends of the spectrum of belief lacks "imagination". As you know, I am agnostic, which enables ample imagination regarding the origin of the universe. Here is an example of a rather crude encounter between two opposing mindsets regarding creations origins. I don't commend the way Dawkins conducted himself, albeit correct, in the least. The man speaking to him is human and at the very least deserves respect, something that wasn't given:

[Well I watched it. And unless there was some deeper, subsurface meaning, I do not see how it was very pertinent to this argument.]
[Those Einsteinian quotes were not without reason. It is one thing, Opti, to have knowledge\\intelligence. It is another to have true imagination. I do not know you well enough to truly judge, but from what I have seen here, you know what you've read, and that is where your thought process ends.]
[Einstein's quote, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" is certainly applicable to more than just problems - it is a live value. It means that you cannot discover with a static chain of thought. Without imagination, exploration is just an answer to questions that are being asked, not those that will be asked. I am merely asking you to think outside the box.]


[As far as the universe is concerned, some believe it is finite, others believe it is infinite. I personally find it easier to believe that it is infinite; for if it is finite, then what lies beyond it?
On top of that, I have heard that space is the lack of. It is nothing. If space is indeed nothing (and not dark matter, as some believe), then the universe must be infinite, because whatever lies beyond space would also be nothing, and therefore space.][I am not basing this off of any scientific study, it is my own thought - I don't believe science can prove an absolute in relation to the universe at this time.]

Now, back to the point I will make, eventually.

You realize you are having a heart attack -- your medication is lying on the counter (beta blockers / nitrates). What do you do? Hrmm...

We both know what "truth" is within this world[Ah, but one mans truth is another man's lie.] -- it is substantiated through the tangibles (you would take this medication that is derived from my proposed method of ascertaining truth), whether you wish to agree or not, I could care not .  You avoiding these critical points for this conversation to move forward is rather pathetic. If any half-witted individual views this conversation, he or she would immediately understand the fallacy within your argument...RED HERRING
[Lucky for me, the United States is lacking in half-witted people :). And I'll be honest, I don't know what the eff most of this has to do with my original thesis, LOL. Pretty sure we just started arguing about arguments.]

Lastly, within any research paper, what must be done to prevent academic misconduct from occurring? The 10,000 dollar answer: sourcing. Citing and providing links is simply a means to facilitate your understanding of the matter. Moreover, when I wish to learn something I am vaguely familiar with or have no knowledge of what-so-ever, I research. If this knowledge is being applied in a paper, I source that knowledge that I previously lacked. Since you seem rather unwilling to look things up yourself, or take my word for it, I provide links for you. I will continue to do so.
[I watch your dang links and look up my own, sir. I enjoy learning and bettering myself - but I also enjoy CREATIVE DESIGN.]

Follow my link and better yourself. I'm done here XD.

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

And maybe I used RED HERRING, but you've used AD HOMINEM, CIRCULAR ARGUMENT and RED HERRING.  I mean, your the one that deviated from the subject in the first place, sir.

[Optimism]

I'm not pretending to know the origin of the universe, because I don't. I'm not pretending to know the answers to life, because I don't. What it all comes down to is this. There may or may not be absolute truth, but for the sake of argument, lets say that there is. Of all the life-styles and points of view held on this planet now and in the past (probably millions), each, according to the individual who believes in their own way-of-life is correct. If we look at this holistically and base the probability of only one being truly correct (none may be correct thus far, or there may not be a greater purpose for the human race period), then we must designate each with a percentage of correctness. Given that these millions of cultural beliefs were believed true by the individual that followed them (they hold the same conviction of "truth" that you hold to your way of life), then we should assign each an equal percent of being correct, so what are the odds your way of life is the truth? Slim to none. What are the odds that my way of life is correct? Slim to none. I'm willing to come to terms with this. Those who are religious are not (for reasons I won't state, as this is another argument entirely). There is no such thing as pure objectivity. Each individual's belief is purely subjective. Given this, there is always the chance that a way-of-life is "incorrect" or an "untruth". Always. It all comes down to what satisfies one the  most. However, I choose to pursue a way of life that provides myself and fellow man with tangible progression, not dogmatic adherence that often leads to regression.

[Xrow]

Life is a mystery.
If you read this, delete it from your quote and be silent or contact me personally. I have always been a thinker, and I fear that most are not. I am a Christian. At times I wonder why animals are said to be virtually worthless in comparison to humans, while humans are of incomparable importance. Are we really?