I need some really controversial topics. Can anyone help?

What do you mean they weren't as extensive? That flood would have only happened several thousand years ago, that's practically yesterday as far as evolution is concerned. There would have been just as many species back then as there are now. Actually, there would have been more species back then are there are now since humans are extremely adept at killing off entire species (whether they're aware of the damage or not).

Also, that guy's number is way off. The number of species in the world is estimated to be somewhere between 2 million to 100 million. Furthermore, one has to take into account that Noah wouldn't have just been saving a few different kinds of animals. Not only can multiple species of the same basic animal be found in the same geographical area, but Noah would have also had to worry about plants, fungi, and aquatic life (all that flooding is going to with the salinity levels). The latter introduces a ton of issues as well since you can't just drop a fish on a dry surface and expect it to stay alive for 40 days, you need an aquarium. In other words, Noah would have needed to invent something that wouldn't exist for several thousand more years afterward.

And of course a flood occured around that area. Floods occur around every body of water. It's hardly some divine anti-miracle that a big flood happened to occur there.

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Here's a dull subject for you then: Equality for women in the workplace – are we there yet? Argue that we definitely aren't (which is true). Just a thought… Could get you more than a decent grade…

poptart

Indeed – sorry I didn't catch your previous post! (which I have now).

Expanding more upon your idea of the role of women in society – the move away from traditional roles of motherhood and housekeeping - Should we revert to the values of the nuclear family or continue with the progressive development of women's rights? Having babies at a later age (which can be physiologically problematic) due to the encouragement to gain a foothold in career beforehand – positive or negative for the family?

Controversial – probably…

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Eh you cannot prove or disprove God so it's a no win discussion.....but your cIass...LJS9502_basic

True; however, you can disprove the dogma of a particular religion, such as the flood story in the Christian Bible.

[QUOTE="cashgee"]What do you guys think of this one: Sex before marriage. I'm definitely against it._en1gma_

I'm for it. I'm also fairly anti-marriage. :P

Totally – if you intend to have an intimate relationship solely with one person for the remainder of your life, make sure you get plenty of practice in before you embark upon that journey…

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]

[QUOTE="cashgee"]What do you guys think of this one: Sex before marriage. I'm definitely against it.poptart

I'm for it. I'm also fairly anti-marriage. :P

Totally – if you intend to have an intimate relationship solely with one person for the remainder of your life, make sure you get plenty of practice in before you embark upon that journey…

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]

[QUOTE="cashgee"]What do you guys think of this one: Sex before marriage. I'm definitely against it.poptart

I'm for it. I'm also fairly anti-marriage. :P

Totally – if you intend to have an intimate relationship solely with one person for the remainder of your life, make sure you get plenty of practice in before you embark upon that journey…

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]

[QUOTE="cashgee"]What do you guys think of this one: Sex before marriage. I'm definitely against it.poptart

I'm for it. I'm also fairly anti-marriage. :P

Totally – if you intend to have an intimate relationship solely with one person for the remainder of your life, make sure you get plenty of practice in before you embark upon that journey…

Ummmm....

Gay marriage

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] We don't care...go for it.

I'm for it. I'm also fairly anti-marriage. :P

Tropicalshower

Totally – if you intend to have an intimate relationship solely with one person for the remainder of your life, make sure you get plenty of practice in before you embark upon that journey…

Of course – it wouldn't bother me in the slightest! Of course not whilst we were dating, but if beforehand she'd done the rounds so to speak – I'm perfectly fine with that (and have been with any girl I've dated in the past).

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]

What does that mean? Also, it is scientifically impossible that Noah fit all known 1.8 million species (and counting) on the Ark.

1) There could not be enough room, especially with the dimensions given.

2) They would not be able to coexist peacefully in such a confined space.

3) I could go on and on.

gameguy6700

What do you mean they weren't as extensive? That flood would have only happened several thousand years ago, that's practically yesterday as far as evolution is concerned. There would have been just as many species back then as there are now. Actually, there would have been more species back then are there are now since humans are extremely adept at killing off entire species (whether they're aware of the damage or not).

Also, that guy's number is way off. The number of species in the world is estimated to be somewhere between 2 million to 100 million. Furthermore, one has to take into account that Noah wouldn't have just been saving a few different kinds of animals. Not only can multiple species of the same basic animal be found in the same geographical area, but Noah would have also had to worry about plants, fungi, and aquatic life (all that flooding is going to **** with the salinity levels). The latter introduces a ton of issues as well since you can't just drop a fish on a dry surface and expect it to stay alive for 40 days, you need an aquarium. In other words, Noah would have needed to invent something that wouldn't exist for several thousand more years afterward.

And of course a flood occured around that area. Floods occur around every body of water. It's hardly some divine anti-miracle that a big flood happened to occur there.

Other than that, good job, you saved me some trouble.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]

True; however, you can disprove the dogma of a particular religion, such as the flood story in the Christian Bible.

Free_Marxet

/p>

Other than that, good job, you saved me some trouble.

pdevil21

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]/p>

Other than that, good job, you saved me some trouble.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]/p>

Other than that, good job, you saved me some trouble.

_en1gma_

do marijuana. i mean the topic >_>

do marijuana. i mean the topic >_>

needled24-7

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You can't compare the scientific advances today to so very long ago dude.:|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

do marijuana. i mean the topic >_>

Tropicalshower

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You can't compare the scientific advances today to so very long ago dude.:|LJS9502_basic

What does that have to do with anything? We're not arguing that the flood myth is false because the bible doesn't mention the correct number of species. We're saying that it's false because there's no way in hell you could fit all those organisms on a single boat. Even just getting all the local fauna to fit on the boat would have been impossible. And again, that doesn't even take into account the challenges that he would have faced such as keeping aquatic organisms alive on the boat.

Hemp Smoking Gay Polygamist Obortionists working in Midget Porn Industry...should be as controversial as you need....Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="_en1gma_"] What exactly do you mean?gameguy6700

What does that have to do with anything? We're not arguing that the flood myth is false because the bible doesn't mention the correct number of species. We're saying that it's false because there's no way in hell you could fit all those organisms on a single boat. Even just getting all the local fauna to fit on the boat would have been impossible. And again, that doesn't even take into account the challenges that he would have faced such as keeping aquatic organisms alive on the boat.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]Hemp Smoking Gay Polygamist Obortionists working in Midget Porn Industry...should be as controversial as you need....captain_joe__

How about: Pedophilia: misunderstood affection

For people suggesting drug legalization. That isn't as controversial as it sounds. Everybody wants weed legalized amirite?????captain_joe__

[QUOTE="captain_joe__"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]Hemp Smoking Gay Polygamist Obortionists working in Midget Porn Industry...should be as controversial as you need....poptart

How about: Pedophilia: misunderstood affection

LJS9502_basic's arguments are in red.

"Species weren't as extensive as we know them to be now either. It means the story is not literal but symbolic. A flood did occur around that area according to scientists"

The first thing you say is that the story is not literal, yet the next sentence and rest of your quotes are making an attempt to defend the story's literal validity. This is a ridiculous incongruity.

"Scientific study wasn't advanced. They would ONLY know of the local species of animals and even then it would be important animals they protected. Livestock and pets. Nothing else."

Well this just gives me more ammo to against the story.

"Not that particular flood. Archeologists claim it happened and that is the flood I'm talking about. But this is not the topic here. Source? Well the text in the bible is from a time when the science was more rudimentary. So of course they wouldn't know of all the various species we do. They still find new species today. Would that mean that we were wrong fifty years okay? Or even ten? No....just that all the facts weren't known"

What is your point?

[QUOTE="captain_joe__"]For people suggesting drug legalization. That isn't as controversial as it sounds. Everybody wants weed legalized amirite?????_en1gma_

LJS9502_basic's arguments are in red.

"Species weren't as extensive as we know them to be now either. It means the story is not literal but symbolic. A flood did occur around that area according to scientists"

The first thing you say is that the story is not literal, yet the next sentence and rest of your quotes are making an attempt to defend the story's literal validity. This is a ridiculous incongruity.

"Scientific study wasn't advanced. They would ONLY know of the local species of animals and even then it would be important animals they protected. Livestock and pets. Nothing else."

Well this just gives me more ammo to against the story.

"Not that particular flood. Archeologists claim it happened and that is the flood I'm talking about. But this is not the topic here. Source? Well the text in the bible is from a time when the science was more rudimentary. So of course they wouldn't know of all the various species we do. They still find new species today. Would that mean that we were wrong fifty years okay? Or even ten? No....just that all the facts weren't known"

What is your point?

pdevil21

LJS9502_basic's arguments are in red.

"Species weren't as extensive as we know them to be now either. It means the story is not literal but symbolic. A flood did occur around that area according to scientists"

The first thing you say is that the story is not literal, yet the next sentence and rest of your quotes are making an attempt to defend the story's literal validity. This is a ridiculous incongruity.

"Scientific study wasn't advanced. They would ONLY know of the local species of animals and even then it would be important animals they protected. Livestock and pets. Nothing else."

Well this just gives me more ammo to against the story.

"Not that particular flood. Archeologists claim it happened and that is the flood I'm talking about. But this is not the topic here. Source? Well the text in the bible is from a time when the science was more rudimentary. So of course they wouldn't know of all the various species we do. They still find new species today. Would that mean that we were wrong fifty years okay? Or even ten? No....just that all the facts weren't known"

What is your point?

pdevil21

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

LJS9502_basic's arguments are in red.

"Species weren't as extensive as we know them to be now either. It means the story is not literal but symbolic. A flood did occur around that area according to scientists"

The first thing you say is that the story is not literal, yet the next sentence and rest of your quotes are making an attempt to defend the story's literal validity. This is a ridiculous incongruity.

"Scientific study wasn't advanced. They would ONLY know of the local species of animals and even then it would be important animals they protected. Livestock and pets. Nothing else."

Well this just gives me more ammo to against the story.

"Not that particular flood. Archeologists claim it happened and that is the flood I'm talking about. But this is not the topic here. Source? Well the text in the bible is from a time when the science was more rudimentary. So of course they wouldn't know of all the various species we do. They still find new species today. Would that mean that we were wrong fifty years okay? Or even ten? No....just that all the facts weren't known"

What is your point?

LJS9502_basic

That just serves my point that there is absolutely no way the flood story is possible; do you believe it or not?

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

LJS9502_basic's arguments are in red.

"Species weren't as extensive as we know them to be now either. It means the story is not literal but symbolic. A flood did occur around that area according to scientists"

The first thing you say is that the story is not literal, yet the next sentence and rest of your quotes are making an attempt to defend the story's literal validity. This is a ridiculous incongruity.

"Scientific study wasn't advanced. They would ONLY know of the local species of animals and even then it would be important animals they protected. Livestock and pets. Nothing else."

Well this just gives me more ammo to against the story.

"Not that particular flood. Archeologists claim it happened and that is the flood I'm talking about. But this is not the topic here. Source? Well the text in the bible is from a time when the science was more rudimentary. So of course they wouldn't know of all the various species we do. They still find new species today. Would that mean that we were wrong fifty years okay? Or even ten? No....just that all the facts weren't known"

What is your point?

Tropicalshower

You're dang right. lol

That just serves my point that there is absolutely no way the flood story is possible; do you believe it or not?

pdevil21

It's funny how the TC creates a thread merely asking for controversial topic suggestions, and a debate concerning religion breaks out. :P

It's funny how the TC creates a thread merely asking for controversial topic suggestions, and a debate concerning religion breaks out. :P

_en1gma_

It's funny how the TC creates a thread merely asking for controversial topic suggestions, and a debate concerning religion breaks out. :P

_en1gma_

Abortion or Same Sex Marriage.

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]

It's funny how the TC creates a thread merely asking for controversial topic suggestions, and a debate concerning religion breaks out. :P

Tropicalshower

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

That just serves my point that there is absolutely no way the flood story is possible; do you believe it or not?

LJS9502_basic

1) We're are talking about Noah's flood story; the one where the entire Earth flooded and Noah saved all the species that are currently alive today on a tiny Ark. You claim that it was impossible for ancient people to have knowledge of all the species that were alive back then, let alone having a few people round all of the world's species up on a boat.

2) I need a source for this flood you keep mentioning and keep in mind that it would have to be evidence for a worldwide flood (I use worldwide because everyone thought the Earth was flat back then). Wouldn't it have been nice if the Bible said something about the world being round?

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]

It's funny how the TC creates a thread merely asking for controversial topic suggestions, and a debate concerning religion breaks out. :P

Dystopian-X

Hey guys, we're in "Off-Topic," everything goes. :P

1) We're are talking about Noah's flood story; the one where the entire Earth flooded and Noah saved all the species that are currently alive today on a tiny Ark. You claim that it was impossible for ancient people to have knowledge of all the species that were alive back then, let alone having a few people round all of the world's species up on a boat.

2) I need a source for this flood you keep mentioning and keep in mind that it would have to be evidence for a worldwide flood (I use worldwide because everyone thought the Earth was flat back then). Wouldn't it have been nice if the Bible said something about the world being round?

pdevil21

2. It was in the new not long ago.

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

1) We're are talking about Noah's flood story; the one where the entire Earth flooded and Noah saved all the species that are currently alive today on a tiny Ark. You claim that it was impossible for ancient people to have knowledge of all the species that were alive back then, let alone having a few people round all of the world's species up on a boat.

2) I need a source for this flood you keep mentioning and keep in mind that it would have to be evidence for a worldwide flood (I use worldwide because everyone thought the Earth was flat back then). Wouldn't it have been nice if the Bible said something about the world being round?

LJS9502_basic

2. It was in the new not long ago.

Well, I'm going to go ahead and call this a win because:

1) You didn't address the paradox we find ourselves in if:

a.) Noah didn't save all the species.

b.) The species he didn't save are still here.

2) You did not give a source.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

1) We're are talking about Noah's flood story; the one where the entire Earth flooded and Noah saved all the species that are currently alive today on a tiny Ark. You claim that it was impossible for ancient people to have knowledge of all the species that were alive back then, let alone having a few people round all of the world's species up on a boat.

2) I need a source for this flood you keep mentioning and keep in mind that it would have to be evidence for a worldwide flood (I use worldwide because everyone thought the Earth was flat back then). Wouldn't it have been nice if the Bible said something about the world being round?

pdevil21

2. It was in the new not long ago.

Well, I'm going to go ahead and call this a win because:

1) You didn't address the paradox we find ourselves in if:

a.) Noah didn't save all the species.

b.) The species he didn't save are still here.

2) You did not give a source.

You do realize that not all the stories are meant to be taken as a fact. The Bible shouldn't be used for historical/scientific facts, its basically a book with advice on how to live your life, and the Old Testament has some pretty crazy stories, and the moral for Noah's Ark would, I guess, not to be such a horrible person or God will kill you and everyone you know with a giant wall of water (I'm sure that's too literal).

People really need to realize the Bible isn't to be taken literally (includes both ends of the spectrum), ignorance is what causes most of these 'religious' arguments. It's like two people that know nothing about cars trying to argue over which car is the best.