Ginger_Warrior

Your gov't teacher has clearly never lived in a socialist country. The Democrats are a capitalism supporting party. They just don't believe in laissez-faire as much as the Republicans do. That doesn't make them socialist. Hell, they're to the right of Labour, and these days, even Labour are a right-wing party.

That's completely unworkable in BlogScape too. I think the fact of the matter is, you know not to do it, I know not to do it, Pyro knows not to do it, and everyone who's been on the forums for more than six months knows not to do it. It's generally people who aren't used to being in a forum community who do it. They'll do it once, they'll get a bad response, and they'll learn not to do it again. It's like how everyone's calling for a rule against bad grammar. Totally pointless. People learn not to use it as they go along.

to convert grams to mols, you divide by that number under the letter on the periodic table, to get from grams to atoms, you times it by Alexandro's number 10^23 and thats how many atom's you have. but you can do alot with mol's besides finding number of atoms, its used alot in stoichiometry That would be Avogrado's number 1.0 X 10^23 ;) That would actually be Avogadro, and it's 6.022 x10^23 particles in 12g of C-12. ;)

Pompey lost. So much for their European credentials after beating... Cardiff City. :roll:

To be honest, even if all you wanted was sex, or kissing or whatever, I'd have nothing against it. I can't say I'm the type of person who would do that myself, but I'm not gonna judge others for acting on natural emotions. So long as you and this girl both know you're not interested in anything the morning after, that is... Your feelings aren't wrong. Leading on a false pretence is. Just recognise the dangers of having a sexual relationship on people's emotions before you jump in head-first. ;)

For the love of Christ... OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST. In the context of the rest of the world he's still right wing. It's only neo-cons trying to create this impression that Obama's "spreading the wealth" comments are tantamount to Lenin. Last I checked, he's not calling for the proletariat revolution, he's not calling for the banks and factories to be state-owned, and he's not endorsing free universal healthcare paid for by the taxpayer.

That's crossbreading, not evolution, but it does question the argument that God sets a path for the world when we can intervene that easily to be selective. Nonetheless, it is arguably an account of events rather than evidence of those events.

Even if it were a huge problem, an announcement in that one board would be sufficient.

Said the man who supports Guantanamo, the Death Penalty, the Iraq War, and opposes the expansion of Medicare. I agree, life is indeed a gift that should be enjoyed thoroughly. What if it isn't being enjoyed though? Your warm words count for nothing in that situation.

Like dustbin collectors, cleaners? How many 40 hours a week jobs do you have in your area involving cleaning? I actually have a compiled list of jobs for 16-19 year olds sat by me now, half of which seem to be for cleaners or pot washers and the like. Now, one's offering 10.5 hours, here's one for 20, here's another for 1.5 a day... I needn't go on. I really don't think you have a clue about these people's situations, do you? It's easy to go "get off your [wagon] and work" but when there's no full-time work available, then what?

A religion based on Marxism? That's interesting, given Marx's stance on religion...

I love it. You whine about Atheists not giving to charity, then when they do, it's just "inflating their ego".

How much do you want to bet on that? :lol: Unless you've got a graduate degree, then I don't think it is. If we're going by who has a higher qualification in evolutionary biology wins, then RD's credentials wipe the floor with yours any day, believe me. ;) How many interpretations of a story do you want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, the whole point of that story is to give one explanation as to how we're even living on this Earth. It seems daft you'd try to argue I'm selecting the wrong one. 1) Interesting you should say that, when the Church at one point argued the Sun orbited around the Earth, and not the other way around.

I'll ignore the rest of the post. I understand the Theory of Evolution perfectly well and I'm willing to bet my qualification in Biology is higher than yours, although warrior's is probably highest here so let's leave the "you don't understand Evolution" semantics to him. If you can't see how the Theory of Evolution directly contradicts the Bible then you're just being ignorant, quite frankly. Even if you don't feel it does, it doesn't matter, I do and it's me you're trying to convince. You haven't been reading my responses. Stated for the third time, I don't care. So in other words, you've got nothing against these ads then?

How is the theory of evolution not a cogent argument against the theory of creationism, given the weight of empirical evidence behind it? I am totally going to direct you towards the 19th century with the advent of theistic evolution which stated that there was nothing fundamentally conflicting with the theory of evolution in relation to the Bible (Of course, the Catholics were late to the party as even in 1931 they still held the view that the theory of evolution was incompatible with the Bible in relation to man. It was okay to believe that plants and animals evolved, though). And, before you come out and say it, creationism =/= ID. So really, what you're saying is this. Any argument made against the concept of there being a God is met by the Church with a "Well, the Bible really said that anyway. We were just taking a 'literal' stance before". How am I supposed to take an organisation that flip flops that much, whilst being openly hostile against Atheists who might find out more evidence to cast doubt over God's existence seriously? Because, you see, while we can't prove God doesn't exist, we certainly have strong amounts of evidence to suspect he doesn't. You, however, have none at all, except the teachings of someone who claimed to be God in human form. You're clearly into metaphorical comparisons. If I walk into a courtroom as a solicitor and go "My client is the Son of God, and he teaches people to love and be fair to each other. Anyone who says otherwise just hates him and all that follow him", would that honestly stand as a defence? No. So really, what I'm asking is this: If you have a problem with the message on this bus, give me one cogent argument to suggest God does exist.

How is the theory of evolution not a cogent argument against the theory of creationism, given the weight of empirical evidence behind it?

Surely that's a fallacy. If you could control your own emotions, or how much you succumb to peer pressure or new temptations, you wouldn't feel a need to take it in the first place.

This is where the military-minded candidate is wrong. The extremists know full well that the American presence is acting as a catalyst for the anti-American unrest in the area, which is what they're feeding off for new recruits. That's the problem in fighting an ideology (Islamic extremism) rather than an actual army. al-Qeada would love McCain to win.

You should really understand the UK education system before you criticise it. Both my primary school and my secondary school were state-run comprehensives, and we frequently prayed in assemblies, not necessarily to a Christian entity, but praying nonetheless. We also have compulsory RE classes (which I don't oppose) where we were taught about other people's faiths, beliefs and stances on certain controversial issues such as abortion, the environment, the manifestation of God (etc.). Religious speakers are allowed to come in with a standard CRB check, and they did come in from time to time. I remember the local Imam came in a few times (my school had a high Muslim population). As others have said, there is a distinction between advertising there may not be a God, and teaching in schools there definitely isn't a God. So, what has this world come to? Well, nothing you should really be afraid about, unless you're against people thinking for themselves. Errdoth - here's the difference: [hide=] OMG IT BENDS! AWESOME!!! Boring...[/hide]

Mainstream music is mainstream for a reason. Yes, there's an argument to suggest the media has too much control over people's tastes, but there's also another to suggest that feeling comes from below and the media are merely displaying populist opinion. I listen to mainstream Indie music, but I also mix it in with a few Hip Hop or Pop tracks, some 80s/90s New Wave, some Punk, some heavier Rock and, of course, some music from the Madchester scene. That's probably been more dictated by my parents' taste in music, both of them growing up around Manchester when New Order, the Stone Roses and the Happy Mondays were becoming a force of their own, than anything the media has forced on me. To be honest, the media's more obsessed around RnB, Hip Hop, Pop and Trance these days anyway, not alternative rock. It's not just the media we should be cautious with though. If someone stopped you in the street and told you there was a blue giraffe rampaging through the city, would you believe them? Of course not. Everything needs to taken with a pinch of salt, that's the way it's always been.

3-0. Easy stuff really. I have a soft spot for Celtic having Irish roots and it's sorry to see them lacking in decent players. You can see the anguish on Gordon's face. People will complain about the two offside goals but we got another one, and Rooney's disallowed wasn't offside anyway. We kept a clean sheet, which is more than can be said for Arsenal... (again).

MGMT, Does it Offend You Yeah?, MIA. There's some Electronic/Indie. Apart from that, these songs in my library are tagged Electronic on Last.fm. It's more Indie-based than rap-based though: Where's Your Head At - Basement Jaxx Declare Independence - Bjork Pretty much anything by Fatboy Slim Propane Nightmares - Pendulum

Last I checked, I could have sworn one of the rallying cries of the, for lack of better words, non-religious were that the religious should keep their views to themselves. Doing something because another group does something even though you hate it when they do that something doesn't bode well for your group. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. I still don't care. You are aware Humanists are religious themselves, aren't you? They just don't believe in a God...

"...the very thing you seemingly hate" What do I hate then? The bus?

Can't really see how this is much of an issue. If people are using a certain theme, they'll likely have become used to the Edit button being there by now so moving it would not only take resources away from the Tip.It staff it would also be more of a nuisance. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.