Return to CreateDebate.comsnappys • Join this debate community

CreateDebate Snappy Awards

Debate Info

Debate Score:18
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Snappys 2012 - Category #31 MOST SCIENTIFIC (11)

Debate Creator

addltd(5112) pic

Snappys 2012 - Category #31 MOST SCIENTIFIC





Add New Argument
6 points

Ricedaragh .

Cheers mate, it's nice that someone recognizes .

LeRoyJames .

ChuckHades(3198) Clarified
1 point

Who ?

1 point

Gary .

EnigmaticMan .

1 point

Me. I am the most scientific.


Idk. But I do study a science. And I tend to focus on the scientific angle.

so yeah.

Damn... you really wanna show those college hispters dat CD shirt don'cha?

HAHAHAhahahahaha .

1 point

Anachronist always seems to love debating evolution, as well as other sciences.

1 point

Me, because


The question really revolves around the quantitative introspective approach to this conundrum which is summarized partially by the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept and the third law of Dynamic Responsiveness. The Quantum Cosmological Differentiation summarizes how the supposed conflict between early neolithic polytheist religious beliefs combined with the eventual evolution to a monotheistic one at a time preceding the scientific advances of the Morphological age of humanity could potentially cause confliction in the argument that there is a clear and single path to the conclusion that there is a resolution to the creator-endeavor paradox (A). The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness on the other hand argues that due to the existence of large objects with a mass greater than or equal to the mass of the star Sirius despite the existence of a black hole within the immediate orbit of the sun, then a force exists that would explain this science defying what would normally happen (B) within the orbital path of Sirius and the black whole. The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness is often used to explain why the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation paradox exists, however it does not explain why the laws (C) of one solve the paradox presented in the other since the given laws of both equations are completely contradicting and self defeating (D)....

To explain why these two can go together there is only one argument that can explain how these two theories (E) could co-exist in the same argument despite having contradictory laws. The thesis describing how Contradictory Laws and their co-existence is possible due to the existing explanations regarding other real world paradoxes (F) within the solar system that can be resolved down to a few basic principles and then reapplied to other paradoxes to explain their functionality. In the paradox described above the best, but not only, paradox that can be easily related (G) to the paradox posed in the quantum mystery that exists within the geographical coordination system in the north eastern hemisphere of Earth known officially as Area 7684, or as civilians refer to it, the Bermuda Triangle. This paradox isnt really a paradox according to common definition, however the logic and phenomena that is known about it can be used and applied to other paradoxes that the Pro has asked to be answered. What is known about the Paradox behind area 7684 revolves around sporadic magnetic field change, randomization of weather systems contrary to the long term climate that is in place within the region, the unusual manipulation and disruption of data transferred between satellites in geo-synchronized orbit and systematic reception stations on the ground. All of these phenomena deal with a force not yet understood but is also observed elsewhere in other common paradoxes that have been identified by the astrological community which have been found in the depths of the universe. This force can be used to answer the question posed by the Pro in round 1 along with a few other paradoxes that also exist. This force can be related back to the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept because these unusual forces can help explain the scientific paradox posed between the evolution of monotheistic ideologies and its confliction prior to the morphological advancement of science, and the original explanations for the natural conception of all things around us that could not be explained by early religious beliefs provided by clergy members of religious systems of the ground gods and sky gods. See the early beliefs about the origin of all matter were crude at first, and as time evolve so did the explanations for why things occurred even as scientific knowledge of how everything works slowly trickled into realization that became accepted by humanity. However in the period prior to the morphological age of science, religious belief held superiority over scientific explanation since scientific explanation was in its most basic form for an extended period of time. However when the morphological age arrived science began to quickly outpace what was commonly held belief and accepted knowledge of the origins of the world. These conflictions between deeply held belief and scientific explanation continued for years as science began to become more and more advanced and explanation and explanation held by religious clergy of a multitude of both monotheistic and polytheistic religious systems were debunked or proven contradictory to evidence (H). Now if you take this process and combine it with the existing paradoxes seen in multiple forms, and the explanation of the forces behind both of these that are not completely understood or remotely explainable at the atomic or chemical level, and you can now use those forces to answer the first part of the question given by the pro in round one.

However this only PARTIALLY answers the question given by the Pro, for all my arguments up to this point have only been regarding the physical antidotes to the issues his question addresses. To answer the faith based confusion often brought on by the possibility of using the rules of a paradox to defeat a paradox in itself naturally raises questions that conflict with ones own personal beliefs. The faith based questions that may have arisen yourself can be answered by the idea that all that does exist at one time existed before but does not exist anymore, and what exists today is only a different version of what existed before. So to clarify any natural conflictions currently colliding between ones own faith and the scientific explanations can be solved by the fact that what once was, is no more, and that what is now, is based off of something that once was. This paradox can be summarized under the 14 principles of the Thadaeu Thompson Equation which states that 1- there is what exists, 2 - what exists around us is seen by us, 3 - what is seen by us is believed by us, 4 - what is believed by us must be understood by us for us to have peace with it, 5 - for something to be understood it must be theoretically be proven true, 6 - for something to be proven true its basics must be understood, 7 - if the basics cannot be understood but can be explained, it can be believed, 8 - if something is believed but then be proven otherwise, confusion can be inflicted, 9 - with confusion comes conflict, 10 - such conflict cannot be easily remedied, 11 - the natural laws of unexplained and complex logic behind paradoxes exist, 12 - these laws in their basic form can solve other paradoxes, 13 - these paradoxes that can be explained can solve previous conflicts, 14 - therefore these logical truths can solve conflicts between beliefs and contrary sciences. Therefore the question given by the Pro can actually be solved fairly quickly if you take several known sets of laws, theories, and concepts, use them to define some of the basic functions that exist within paradoxes, use what can be obtained from these basic functions and apply them to other naturally occurring paradoxes, and thus use these basic truths and basic functions to answer questions similar to the one that the pro has created this resolution to debate over.

So summarizing all my arguments to this point, I placed letters at strategic points in this argument where letters represent all the arguments I have brought up. Using the syllogism below I will condense my arguments down to the bare facts to illustrate the point i am making

If A then B

If B then C

If C then not D

If Not D then maybe F

If E the G

If G and A then D

Since D is real then so is H

H is real, therefore F is actually real despite D existing at the same time C does

And that is why I am the most scientific.

AveSatanas(4426) Disputed
3 points

No source citations internal or otherwise, incomplete hypothesis, no abstract or introduction, no replicatable experimentation or data. Copy and paste was used. Most plagiarized argument award goes to IzFerno10.