Debate discussion

Do you think we should drill in Alaska?

Pros: We wouldn't have to depend as much on other countries to get us oil. It might get us out of Iraq.

Cons: It could hurt the environment and animals. There could be oil spills.

I used to think that we shouldn't drill in Alaska becuase it would hurt the environment and other things. Now, I'm thinking maybe we should because one of the main reasons we're in Iraq is to protect our foreign interests(i.e.-the oil we get from them). I think a human life is worth more than an animal's. If we drilled in Alaska, we wouldn't have to depend as much on foreign countries.

Your thoughts?

There would be precautions taken to protect the animals, I assume.

I think we shouldn't mainly because of the animals. There are already enough oil spills and animals dying or getting hurt from them. (Example: Penguins)
Also, with the global warming, we don't need any more oil spills.
Polar Bears are becoming extinct from the global warming and having oil spills would only make it worse..

Sorry but I care more about animals than humans :P

"Also, with the global warming, we don't need any more oil spills. "

How are the two connected? Besides they both kill animals, of course.

That's how they're connected. As I said. I care more about animals than people.

ooo. okayz. <3

But people are animals. And animals can't talk to you on goodreads, now can they?

But, if people are animals, you are talking to a bunch of animals, abet ones with thumbs and bigger comparative brains.

People are not animals -.-
I don't believe in Darwin's theory. Nice try.
And besides, no one said I have to like people :P
<3

What makes us more then an animal?

What exactly makes us an animal?

"

Postby charles brough on Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:24 pm
Yes, of course, we can walk upright, have an opposing thumb, speech and a more effective brain. However, when children are brought up without the influence of society, eithout our culture and even language, they come out very primitive indeed. There have been many isolated examples of ferral children found in the wild---some actually brough up by other animals. The result is not something desirable. Their speech is stunted, they are socially inept and isolated, they have difficulty learning. Instances have been recorded where they did not even walk upright.

The point is that what makes us so different is that we have built up an incredible cultural heritage over the many tens of thousands of years. Our more evolved anatomical advantages has made that possible, but without that cultural heritage, we are still very primitive animals.

Even so, we are all animal. We are primates. "

I quoted that from http://www.biology-online.org/biology...

I basically summed up what I think, in a clear way. Most of it.

Plus, are we not filed under Homo sapien, a branch of the primate species? If we are not animals, why are we in the classification system with monkeys? There are obvious similarities between monkeys and us.

....once again, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution.
I do not believe in it.
Just because we do not have proper speech, etc. does not exactly make us animals. We have the capability to learn at any age. Animals, however, do not.
Also Lauren, you are atheist. I am not. We are obviously going to have different views on this.

Obviously.

Animals have the ability to learn. Dog tricks?

Animals have rudimentary forms of language. Zoos are very noisy, no?

But still, we are still a Homo sapien. Where do you think we should be filed, if not with the primates?

In a separate kingdom.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on what I was saying. I meant animals cannot learn English at any age.

And that makes us special? What about the people with severe learning problems, if they cannot learn English, are they not human? What about the people who don't speak English?

Then other languages can be taught at a young age as well.
Do you think you would be able to teach a dog how to speak Spanish, Arabic, French, etc.?

Just because the dog is stupider then us, doesn't mean we are somehow better.

"The new analysis of the rhesus monkey genome, conducted by an international consortium of more than 170 scientists, also reveals that humans and the macaques share about 93 percent of their DNA. By comparison, humans and chimpanzees share about 98 to 99 percent of their DNA. "

http://www.livescience.com/health/070...

99%. Quite a lot.

No matter how many facts you give me lauren, it is not going to change my mind on Darwin's theory.

Is that being closed-mined?

If God came down and told me right now, that it was all true, I would believe it. Given the right roof, of course. Is there nothing that would convince you?

Nope. Nothing. I stand for my beliefs.

Well, we have hit an impasse.

Just one last point. What id your opinion on this quote?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
— Epicurus

My opinion is, how can he say that if no one truly knows God. No one knows his ways.

The Bible claims both to be a source of God's wisdom, his thought, and what he is.

The Bible was also written on others beliefs and what they claim to have heard God say

So, in your opinion, who wrote the Bible? Man, or God?

Both

In what way? God divinely inspired it?

Why would he divinely inspire slavery, rape and genocide?

God did not divinely inspire slavery, rape, or genocide. He shuns it and is caused by satan.

Then why was it put as okay in a book he had something to do with?

"Sunday, March 15, 2009
Was the Bible Written by Satan?
Pretend you're on a jury for a trial over who wrote the Bible: God is suing Satan, because Satan is trying to claim HE wrote the Bible! But the trial hasn't gone like God hoped – Satan has a really good lawyer, and he's making mincemeat of God's case.

First of all, if God wrote the Bible, wouldn't He make everything totally clear, succinct, easy to understand, and unfailingly moral? I mean, He is God, right? Surely God should be a pretty good writer, able to write clearly and concisely.

Instead of beating around the bush about Jesus' divinity, He would just say, "Jesus and I are one and the same." Instead of conflicting messages about marriage, ambiguity about homosexuality, apparent approval of polygamy and slavery, God would have written, "Don't have sex before you're married." "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." "Slavery is a sin." "A man may only have one wife, and a wife only one husband." And so forth. Gosh, it seems pretty easy to me, writing clear, unambiguous commandments!

Just based on poor writing and lack of clarity, it's not looking good for God and His lawyer.

On top of that, there's all that stuff about killing adulterers, expelling a couple from the community if they have sex during a woman's period, requiring a virgin who is raped to marry her rapist, stoning anyone to death who works on the sabbath, and so many more laws that are just plain immoral.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you really believe that God wrote this stuff about Himself?

Now think about the reverse. What if you were Satan, plotting to do the worst thing you could? You're tired of tempting people into sin — corrupting people one at a time is inefficient. What could you do to amplify your evil? Why not enlist your victims to help you spread evil?

We all know that half-truths are much more dangerous than outright lies, that confusion is much harder to fight than clarity, and that we're all egotistical and want to believe we're better than everyone else.

The best way Satan could get his way would be to write a Bible that was filled with half truths, contradictions, moral ambiguity, appeals to egotism and a "chosen people," and confusing stories that everyone can interpret however they like.

Then, Satan would get his minions to convince the world that this "Bible" was the true word of God. Better yet, Satan would spread the idea that anyone who disagreed would go to Hell (very clever irony, given that he is Satan).

These half truths, contradictions and ambiguities would then start to do their work. People would interpret them differently, and begin to argue, and split into factions. Families would split. Villages would break into religious factions, with bitter hatred for one another. Whole countries would even go to war over this purported "Bible." People would be tortured and murdered when they failed to follow this "Bible," even if they were trying to do their best, just because someone else interpreted the Bible's crazy laws differently.

Satan would laugh with glee. What a wonderful trick he'd pulled!

Better yet, the fear inspired by Satan's Big Lie (about going to Hell if you don't believe) would cause good people to actually defend Satan's own writings! They would start a huge intellectual effort called "Christian apologetics," devoted to explaining why, in spite of the glaring errors, contradictions and immorality in Satan's Bible, it was actually all true, and was in fact the word of Satan's arch-rival, God. This would be Satan's ultimate achievement, that the humans that God created would actually turn against God and defend Satan's Bible!

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what is your opinion? Who wrote the Bible, God, or Satan?"

http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/

Like that?

I'm not reading that entire thing. You know I won't.

So, you accept it as true? Or false, for no reason, as you have not read it and cannot know if it is false or not?

It's not that long...

Yes but I am doing homework therefore I shall read it later

WORK FASTER! lolololol

lol shut up! it's a project

Due...Friday?

no. due next monday (the 30th). but i want an A+.
and it's a contest so i want to win so i'm starting it early :P

Contest? Cool.

Yep :)

We should drill in Alaska. We have the oil in our backyards, so why not use it? A tiny dot on the cap of the Alaskan forest is not that big of a deal. Some animals may be killed, but for the most part they'll just migrate elsewhere and adapt there. Drilling in our own country and removing our dependance on foreign oil seems the best way to go.

you act as if animals are the least important thing in the world. they are incredibly important and killing them for our own benefit it selfish and wrong. without the animals, a chain reaction would occur that would eventually reach humans and we would be screwed. think about that.

We wouldn't be meaning to kill them, but if a few died, oh well. Humans are higher up on the importance scale compared to other animals. In modern days we need oil to perform at our best, and pretty much to survive. I think that drilling in Alaska with the mere RISK of killing animals is the best way to go. And I honestly doubt that we'd make an entire species go extinct by drilling in one tiny spot in a giant forest. Come on, it's ridiculous to think that.

DRILL BABY DRILL!!! :D

((More random comments))

That could be so sexual. XD

Yes. Yes it could be :P

Ignore me and my humor, my friends have corrupted me.

Oil will RUN OUT. Instead of wasting our time on that, let's find an alternate resource.

I'm all for alternate resources, but we shouldn't be denied oil. We need it for our cars, heating, stoves, etcetera. Do you want to mow the lawn with a pair of scissors? I certainly don't seeing how my lawn is about .7 acres.

:D Well, yes. We should drill. *ouch* but we shouldn't see that as our only option.

I agree :)

we dont seriously need those things. at least we didnt, but now people are so tangled up in modern technology its virtually impossible to go back. and we dont need lawns either. i dont think we should use oil, period but since i have no power over those choices, i am basically talking to a wall.

Yeah, we don't need oil -headdesk- I'd rather have hot showers, a heated home, a car to drive all the way to Atlanta for doctors appointments every month, gas to mow my big lawn with, etcetera. We don't need them except that now that we've come this far it would be difficult for us to go back. I don't want to go back to the dark ages! ;.;