Follow us on Twitter!
I'd prefer to die standing, than to live on my knees - Che Guevara
Friday, April 18, 2014
Navigation
Home
HellBoundHackers Main:
HellBoundHackers Find:
HellBoundHackers Information:
Learn
Communicate
Submit
Shop
Challenges
HellBoundHackers Exploit:
HellBoundHackers Programming:
HellBoundHackers Think:
HellBoundHackers Track:
HellBoundHackers Patch:
HellBoundHackers Other:
HellBoundHackers Need Help?
Other
Members Online
Total Online: 11
Guests Online: 11
Members Online: 0

Registered Members: 82822
Newest Member: TheBunter
Latest Articles
View Thread

HellBound Hackers | General | Debates

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Author

The BIG One

The-Scarecrow
Member



Posts: 167
Location: Australia
Joined: 18.05.07
Rank:
Newbie
Posted on 24-04-10 12:37
I was talking with a friend the other day when I realized how much I like to argue with people. I like seeing the dumb look on their face as their argument crumbles to pieces beneath my barrage of superior facts. Unfortunately, my friends are all idiots and, in the face of my awesome power, often resort to the patented "You're gay" response. I want to argue with someone but no one around me is competent. So I started thinking... what if there are other people out there that are plagued by this same pain?

So here it goes. I know how much you guys like to bicker and argue so I figured we might as well put it to use. Every so often a new topic (in thread form) will be posted by an admin for you guys to pick sides and fight it out in an intelligent way. After the argument dies down, a poll will be posted prompting us HBHians to pick a winning side based on strength of points and quality of information.

So that's my idea in a nutshell. Any questions? Who am I kidding, of course you have questions. In fact, I have even taken the time to create a preemptive FAQ. You're welcome.

But Futility, what about all the inevitable morons who will post the dumb Fuck You messages and will ruin the fun- just like in your sad story at the beginning?

That is what HBH's amazing mod team is here for. We're going to start off trusting you guys. The thread will be open all the time for your entertainment. But, if just one argument goes off-topic and begins to explain what your mother enjoys doing with animals in her spare time, the whole idea will go into lockdown. Threads will be locked whenever there are less than two admins on to moderate it, and dictatorship will run rampant. There will also be warn points handed out like candy for those who really want some.

How long do I have to vote for the side which I feel has won the debate?

You will have one week after the debate is over to vote for the winner.

How often will new ideas be posted for debate?

Honestly, I don't know. It depends on how many people contribute, how good the argument gets, how even it stays... If a debate becomes horrifically one-sided, it will be closed off in a matter of days. If a thread gets terrific contribution, then it could go on for over a week. Either way, you will be given a two day warning before it closes so everyone can finish up what they're saying.

What do you get for winning?
Nothing, really. I might throw in some community points for posts that deserve it, but you won't be getting anything major. This is more to stimulate the community and have a good time while doing it.

So what do you guys think? Like it? Love it? Adore it? (You couldn't possibly hate it, so why would I even consider asking?) I'll leave this thread open for suggestions and improvements, so feel free to give me a piece of your mind.


In that spirit I'm going to kick us off with one of the contemporary big ones.

Intelligent design vs. Evolution.

Rule 1. This argument will have nothing to do with God/Mohammad/Yahweh/Buddha/Confucius or the flying spaghetti monster.

Rule 2. Because this guy said so (white lab coat or not) is not a valid point.





img518.imageshack.us/img518/1368/userbar619616sw2.gif
Ask me for it ill give it.
Author

RE: The BIG One

goluhaque
Member



Posts: 197
Location: India
Joined: 17.02.10
Rank:
Apprentice
Warn Level: 30
Posted on 24-04-10 12:47
Well, if you say that there should be no arguements of the type
Because this guy said so (white lab coat or not) is not a valid point


I don't think there ever can be any debate on this part/question. I don't think we individually have any proof of evolution or would know about it by ourselves. We know Evolution occurred because "those guys in white lab coats" told us. Also, about the other side, there cannot be any arguement there to because those guys have no arguements except that they have been told by priests or whatever and believe in that side in their hearts, which I fear, is not an arguement.


That applause I receive from y'all on posting this post would have gotten me drunk on power if I hadn't already been high on life.
Author

RE: The BIG One

The-Scarecrow
Member



Posts: 167
Location: Australia
Joined: 18.05.07
Rank:
Newbie
Posted on 24-04-10 12:50
But you can argue from what you have seen in nature that a organism seems designed or is chance. Also in the grand scheme of things 'lab coats' really don't know that much more than us.


img518.imageshack.us/img518/1368/userbar619616sw2.gif
Ask me for it ill give it.
Author

RE: The BIG One

goluhaque
Member



Posts: 197
Location: India
Joined: 17.02.10
Rank:
Apprentice
Warn Level: 30
Posted on 24-04-10 12:57
Dunno man. Both are hypotheses. I don't think any concrete proof can be given by either side unless we believe in the words of scientists or whatever. Especially, coming to a conclusion by observing nature is wrong.

It's just as stupid as saying as "Nature loves Symmetry"(quoting De Broglie).


That applause I receive from y'all on posting this post would have gotten me drunk on power if I hadn't already been high on life.
Author

RE: The BIG One

The-Scarecrow
Member



Posts: 167
Location: Australia
Joined: 18.05.07
Rank:
Newbie
Posted on 24-04-10 13:10
when i said you can't just believe 'lab coats' i meant it more in the sense that you cant say intelligent design is wrong because Darwin said it was and Darwin is smart. That's not a logical argument. but you can use other peoples work, eg quoting that the speed of light is currently around 3x10^8m.s^-1


img518.imageshack.us/img518/1368/userbar619616sw2.gif
Ask me for it ill give it.
Author

RE: The BIG One


Member

Your avatar

Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank:
Guest
Posted on 24-04-10 13:36
The-Scarecrow wrote:
quoting that the speed of light is currently around 3x10^8m.s^-1

The value of the speed of light will never change it has been used for the definition of a meter. If we find out that it's faster than we expected the speed of light will still be 299792458m/s but the meter will be longer Smile


Author

RE: The BIG One

goluhaque
Member



Posts: 197
Location: India
Joined: 17.02.10
Rank:
Apprentice
Warn Level: 30
Posted on 24-04-10 14:16
The-Scarecrow wrote:
when i said you can't just believe 'lab coats' i meant it more in the sense that you cant say intelligent design is wrong because Darwin said it was and Darwin is smart. That's not a logical argument. but you can use other peoples work, eg quoting that the speed of light is currently around 3x10^8m.s^-1

Oh, well then I support the Evolution view. At the time of reproduction(sexual) "Crossing Over" takes place, homologus sister chromosomes exchange DNA and that is Variation. Nature ensures that organisms that don't have good/poweful new genes i.e. not fit for survival dies due to natural causes or is killed by the stronger organism for food, competition etc. Stronger as in having less diseases(DNA controls many things. Good set of DNAs referring to those that don't cause diseases or are not mutated).


That applause I receive from y'all on posting this post would have gotten me drunk on power if I hadn't already been high on life.
Author

RE: The BIG One


Member

Your avatar

Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank:
Guest
Posted on 24-04-10 14:32
I'd like to add that evolution does happen. Even if you believe God or whatever created the universe and humans 6000 years ago since then evoilution would have occurred.
Evolution is simply a consequence of genetics, finite resources ( and a few other things). Once you accept this fact it's only a short step to accept that humans could come about by evolution and all inteligent design does is speed up this process.
but here's the kicker, there is no need to speed up the process 4 billion years is long enough, inteligent design is obsolete not to mention a misnomer considering the falls in all the design we see around us.


Author

RE: The BIG One


Member

Your avatar

Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank:
Guest
Posted on 24-04-10 19:36
MoshBat wrote:
Who gives a fuck? We will never know.


I second this.
Author

RE: The BIG One

spyware
Member



Posts: 4192
Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 14.04.07
Rank:
God
Warn Level: 90
Posted on 24-04-10 19:49
Evolution is a name we gave to something we can see. Intelligent design is a name people gave to something you cannot see.

What's the debate? Asking whether I "believe" in evolution is like asking me whether I believe in the grass beneath my very own feet.



img507.imageshack.us/img507/3580/spynewsig3il1.png
"The chowner of property." - Zeph
[small]
Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term,
but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.
- Carl Sagan
“Since the grid is inescapable, what were the earlier lasers about? Does the corridor have a sense of humor?” - Ebert
[/s
http://bitsofspy.net
Author

RE: The BIG One

spyware
Member



Posts: 4192
Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 14.04.07
Rank:
God
Warn Level: 90
Posted on 24-04-10 19:56
MoshBat wrote:
But, you must remember those old kid's films. Seeing isn't believing!
Shit, if I believed everything I saw with my own eyes (not on a PC) then I would believe that there are faces in the woodchip on my wall.


You shouldn't take "seeing" literally. It's more like... perceiving.



img507.imageshack.us/img507/3580/spynewsig3il1.png
"The chowner of property." - Zeph
[small]
Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term,
but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.
- Carl Sagan
“Since the grid is inescapable, what were the earlier lasers about? Does the corridor have a sense of humor?” - Ebert
[/s
http://bitsofspy.net
Author

RE: The BIG One

fuser
Member



Posts: 960
Location: in front of a computer (duh)
Joined: 05.04.07
Rank:
Mad User
Posted on 24-04-10 20:32
well, you have to remember that we perceive the world the way it is, so when two persons are shown the same example of life, the ID person would say that it is proof that life on earth is created, while the other one would say that it is a process of evolution.

what I always notice is that people generally stick to either sides that sometimes they get blinded by it. I happen to reason that maybe life was created (by whom, I am not at liberty to say since I'm as ignorant as all of you) and then evolved over time to adapt to the climates of this world, so I would say it's both.

@Scarecrow, Mohammad is the prophet, not the god for muslims. For muslims, their god is Allah, although I'm pretty sure you slipped up.


img.userbarz.com/51/10006.png
img.userbarz.com/146/29144.gif
img.userbarz.com/99/19602.jpg
img.userbarz.com/4/600.png
img.userbarz.com/45/8814.gif
img360.imageshack.us/img360/9231/bfbarlr0.jpg
[url=http://userbarz.com/][img]ht
catinthecpu@hotmail.com
Author

RE: The BIG One

techb
Member



Posts: 384
Location:
Joined: 15.02.09
Rank:
Moderate
Posted on 24-04-10 20:39
My take on things is nothing is intelligent design and evolution are one in the same. At the point of creation everything was designed, by whom or what is anyone's guess.

The first living thing had to be something that could adapt or evolve because of this dynamic world. And being able to evolve had to come from some sort of intelligent design that allowed the variables of this dynamic earth to effect its reproduction and everyday function.

and @fuser:

Where did you get the things in your sig? I know where to find the HBH ones, but the Misfits and Windows 7 where did you get them?


www.userbars.com/74460/665255/337-7865-ubda3219.gif


Edited by techb on 24-04-10 20:41
kbcarte.wordpress.com
Author

RE: The BIG One

techb
Member



Posts: 384
Location:
Joined: 15.02.09
Rank:
Moderate
Posted on 24-04-10 20:51
Moshbat said:
The first organism was likely an Amoeba. Intelligent fuckers.


They where able to adapt and learn, evolving into what it is today.

And thanks for info about the user bar. I didn't know what they where called, or else I would have already googled.


www.userbars.com/74460/665255/337-7865-ubda3219.gif
kbcarte.wordpress.com
Author

RE: The BIG One


Member

Your avatar

Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank:
Guest
Posted on 24-04-10 21:39
God/Yahweh (same dude btw) reincarnated as Mohammad in a white lab coat told me that in accordance with Confucius's teachings our evolution was intelligently designed by Buddha working together with the flying spaghetti monster. Now that that's solved, let's all go out for ice cream!


Author

RE: The BIG One

stealth-
Member



Posts: 1003
Location: Eh?
Joined: 10.04.09
Rank:
Mad User
Posted on 25-04-10 00:29
It's funny how everyone loves to argue and get pissed off when it's off topic and in someone else's thread, but when there is actually a thread setup for the sake of argueing, everybody turns it into a joke.

Personally, though, I'm agnostic (Like Moshbat's opinion, but without the "Who cares?").
And, on one last note, COM, can we get blizzards?


The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive.
http://www.stealt. . .

Edited by stealth- on 25-04-10 00:30
http://www.stealth-x.com
Author

RE: The BIG One

The-Scarecrow
Member



Posts: 167
Location: Australia
Joined: 18.05.07
Rank:
Newbie
Posted on 25-04-10 01:36
I think that their is defiantly variation within a species for instance if you drop 2 perfect dogs with a full set of DNA into the snow and then came back in a 100 years to see how your dogs are going. You would find that they would have longer hair, not because they through really hard and adapted to the cold weather but simply because the dogs with shorter hair have died out. We see this all the time. But this is a destruction of Genetic code, nothing is created. When you try to put DNA together by chance you do not get what you see today.

I think people see these long haired dogs not understanding what whats happening on a genetic level and then give a magical figure of a million billion years and say anything could happen. But the real problem I have is that they really start getting creative. Eg. Big Bang, Multi-verse, Oort clouds, Fusing atoms past Iron then thinking they will just decay down to carbon. That is not science, its not even wishful thinking, its what an adults imagination comes up with when ignoring the alternative.

An evolutionary line of thinking cannot even explain how the moon got into orbit or how some planets are spinning in different directions to others.


img518.imageshack.us/img518/1368/userbar619616sw2.gif
Ask me for it ill give it.
Author

RE: The BIG One


Member

Your avatar

Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank:
Guest
Posted on 25-04-10 03:02
The-Scarecrow wrote:
I think that their is defiantly variation within a species for instance if you drop 2 perfect dogs with a full set of DNA into the snow and then came back in a 100 years to see how your dogs are going. You would find that they would have longer hair, not because they through really hard and adapted to the cold weather but simply because the dogs with shorter hair have died out. We see this all the time. But this is a destruction of Genetic code, nothing is created. When you try to put DNA together by chance you do not get what you see today.

I think people see these long haired dogs not understanding what whats happening on a genetic level and then give a magical figure of a million billion years and say anything could happen. But the real problem I have is that they really start getting creative. Eg. Big Bang, Multi-verse, Oort clouds, Fusing atoms past Iron then thinking they will just decay down to carbon. That is not science, its not even wishful thinking, its what an adults imagination comes up with when ignoring the alternative.

An evolutionary line of thinking cannot even explain how the moon got into orbit or how some planets are spinning in different directions to others.

I completely agree with the latter part. Personally I think this whole "atoms" thing is bullshit; have any of you ever seen these "atoms"? I think not. And for mere speculation, it is absurd. I don't want to say that it's right just because some guy said it, but many, many civilizations throughout the ages have all come to the conclusion that things are made of and governed by a certain amount of elements. Most include at the very least earth, fire and water in the list of these elements. And I mean, who are you to argue with several ancient civilizations?

As for the first point, I feel that the religious person's view should be represented about that as well, so I'm here to tell it.
Now, if you drop two gods (perfect by definition, do not dare to question!) with a full set of divine powers in the middle of an uncreated universe and come back in thousands of years to see how your gods are doing. You will find that they have created at least three worlds, the two rivaling sides and the plane in the middle, the two rivaling sides having specific creatures created for the god's sake when the apocalypse comes and the middle being influenced by both. This isn't because the gods love to create, but rather because of the bitter rivalry that exists between them and the help of an army will help to settle bitter rivalries which will undoubtedly arise because of each god's sense of being the better one (as they're both perfect). Simple human games aren't sufficient to determine such things and they do not love their creations, which is a common misconception by creationists. They only improve them to have even greater soldiers on the battlefield or in the pre-battles, designing them intelligently for this purpose. When you try to create things by chance (aka: fucking), you do not have the same power of creation nor control as a god and your understanding of it tends to lack and you do not get such a grand result as you can't see from here.
Furthermore, you will also find that one human will have been taken by one of the sides but having his human feelings left will use his newfound powers to go against his creators, slaughtering several of their minions, being heightened to the status of a god in the middle of the apocalypse by the mother of all gods and then sealing the two gods you dropped in the middle of uncreated universe into the core of their own creation.
And thus ends the summation of the book of Spawn, the religious person's only true scripture. Now it's up to you gentlemen to choose which is most fucking awesome: long haired dogs... or Spawn.


Author

RE: The BIG One

The-Scarecrow
Member



Posts: 167
Location: Australia
Joined: 18.05.07
Rank:
Newbie
Posted on 25-04-10 09:01
Thanks Moshbat your input is rarely wanted.
And COM stay off the crack pipe son. Religion has no part in this discussion.


img518.imageshack.us/img518/1368/userbar619616sw2.gif
Ask me for it ill give it.
Author

RE: The BIG One


Member

Your avatar

Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank:
Guest
Posted on 25-04-10 15:29
The-Scarecrow wrote:
Thanks Moshbat your input is rarely wanted.
And COM stay off the crack pipe son. Religion has no part in this discussion.


Addressing the person who is to claim ownership of the above stated quote, yet leaving forthcoming points open for other individuals to engage as well as per the nature of debates of this type, I will be arguing the three main points having been stated in order of appearance. As such for ease of reading and literary aesthetics, the personal pronoun "you" will be interchangeable with the alias "The-Scarecrow" for the rest of this post.

Firstly, as this has been presented by clear implication by you as a purely factual endeavour (see the first post of this thread, ID 146295, base link http://www.hellbo. . .589_0.html), the gratitude, especially as it was obviously given without any reference as to what you might be giving thanks for, id est: agreeing with, has no place in this thread. Furthermore you make a statement about the necessity of MoshBat's general input into matters with such vagueness, unclear relation to subject matter and subjectivity that it is, ipso facto, not only superfluous to this argument, but directly unwanted and without proper place to take.

Secondly, you make yet another subjective statement; this time targeting me [COM] and we thus can distinguish a clear pattern in your input to this debate. Your statement is not only, as previously mentioned, subjective, but it takes a clearly personal and with a high probability attempted insulting undertone. Such manner of provocation and failed attempt at an argument as you have no basis to elevate your statement in any way to fact, is of clearly unwanted nature in any form of debate save the lowest forms which occur amongst the unintelligent and which often leads to violence of physical nature.
I feel inclined to bring up the high possibility of the aforementioned subjective nature in your arguments creating a distinguishable pattern and thus elevating the probability of your remarks losing weight and credibility as helpful tools to provide support for whichever stance you have chosen to take in regards to this debate.

Thirdly, your statement, which with consideration of the preceding arguments is only taken seriously as a basis for argument, is in disagreement with the topic that you yourself brought to light here. While you did obviously try to disassociate the debate from some content of religious type, this only serves as a mirage to maintain an illusion of objectivity in the debate. Furthermore it is made out to seem fair on both sides which you have presented but will obviously severely cripple one side to give an unfair advantage to the other. As well as these points, your argument fails mainly due to the very nature of the topic presented (intelligent design vs. evolution).
If we examine the first part of the topic at hand, intelligent design, we will come to the conclusion that it will clearly have to be connected with religion, not only by the widely known fact that it is mainly a theory used by religious groups as seen in popular media.
Intelligent design is, as clearly discernible from its title, the theory of lifeforms and generally speaking, the universe, having been designed by an intelligent being of some sort. While this at first glance does not necessitate it to be a being with religious origins, that'd only remain a possibility for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. of the designers in question as the theory would mean that they themselves having been created intelligently by something, leading to an infinite line of creators. These, as being a part of the universe in some form by not being of supernatural nature, must have started somewhere. "Ex nihilo nihil fit", id est, there must be a supernatural phenomenon occurring somewhere within this theory, in effect putting it in juxtaposition with religion and making them in practicality exchangeable for a debate of this nature. This leading to your argument and implied intentions failing as per their own nature as a whole from the very beginning, potentially making this entire debate futile beyond the consideration of the entirety of existence.

Summa summarum, your arguments fail in all respects with the exception of provoking a reply and if you should wish to maintain a respectable nature to the debate you started, you should start providing objective, factual and relevant arguments. The fact that you were the person to start this farce of a discussion, does not empower you with the authority to distort meanings however you wish to make it more favouring for you.
Q.E.D




Edited by on 25-04-10 22:06
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >