Death_By_Pod

What's the difference? If you think about it, there are only 4: Size-so is a giant "more human" than a Little person? Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid? Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields? Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics? The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter. A foetus has no functioning brain; a person that has no functioning brain would be called dead. I.e. the foetus isn't living hence isn't human. Thanks for playing the ignorance game and over generalising the argument. If you bothered to read the thread you would have found what makes a human more human then a foetus.

Macroevolution = microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + ... + microevolution I heard you suck but itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s already been debated so letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not go there.

Or the fact that it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a brain so it can never inherently have any self awareness, traits feelings or behaviour; its like saying a windmill has behaviour because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s spinning. Any self awareness a robot has is directly programmed by the programmer, not because the robot is self aware but is being told to act self aware. A proper comparison involving robots would be a deprogrammed responding to itself; wild animals arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t programmed like a robot to respond to their own image. If you design a robot with a real, organic brain then why wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you treat it like any other animal; however they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have brains so there is no comparison. Even if the test isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t failsafe its still is problematic to call a foetus a person if they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even have the mental faculties for self awareness (a working brain; brainwave). I was merely giving 1 example of something that can identify self awareness; I was never using it as the end all in experiments. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not physical recognition because you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognising between ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åother animalsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Reacting to stimuli (such as the dot), learning and taking care of others does imply awareness, in order to react to the stimuli you need to recognise the image in the mirror is yourself and the actions in the mirror correspond to your actions and so on. Robots have nothing to do with awareness according to your definition since robots have no self identity, no traits, feelings or behaviour; it has no phycology to be studied. Robots are a non biological extension of the animal that created them. Being able to create a robot implies that the creator is self aware not that the robot. The self awareness trait is transferred from the creator by programming the robots self awareness. The robot will still fail the test because the robot canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell if it is itself or another identical robot from looking in the mirror. It canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t comprehend what the dot is doing on the surface; it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t inquisitive like a self aware animal. It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect because animals that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t rely on sight are less likely to pass the test (eg. Dogs are better known for smelling), not that the test is some horrible failure as you seem to imply. Did you read my post; they pass the test if they know the dot on the mirrors forehead corresponds to their own forehead (by way of rubbing/scratching/playing with the dot in the mirror), whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s subjective about that? Babies should realise there is something abnormal on their head and try to rub it off (but they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t). It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physical recognition otherwise the animal would have thought their reflection is any other animal. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognise yourself unless you know the qualities of that make you. Go and take a look at what the mirror test is (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more then just seeing yourself in the mirror). (Apologies for grammar/spelling in advance, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s late)

By going out and testing for self awareness, are you serious? Mirror test is the most common of these; a mark (dye) is placed on the animal and put in from of a mirror. The animal should be able to recognise that it is themself and not another animal to be considered self aware in this test. Although this isn't the perfect test for self awareness it does give us an indication that the animal has some level of self awareness if they react to the mirror as a mirror and not another animal. Also despite common perception, pigeons are pretty intelligent and passed the mirror test for self awareness yet human babies fail it.

So how long do you think it should be studied for? Every GM crop has been in the pipeline on average 10 years, these solutions are not cheap/quick; they require as much work/testing as a new drug or medical procedure.

People with severe mental disabilities still register a brain wave, underdeveloped foetuses do not. It has nothing to do with mental capacity; it has everything to do with it being built and activated. Having a brainwave is the condition for being alive (not brain dead) so things like disability play no part in determining if you're a human or not. It's not arbitrary, I'm trying to put the statistics into some form of context (by stating that most household products differentiate more, for example if you weighed two bags of flour you will not get them within 0.1% of the advertised weight). The DNA that does differentiate from one person to another is the least important component of DNA; you are all born with a brain, heart etc. The environment does more work differentiating us then DNA; in fact the environment is what gives us such large aesthetic variation (infinitely more then what genetics could do). The things we use to differentiate between one another (e.g. skin condition, hair, posture, voice, weight, mannerisms etc. etc.) are all governed by the environment with little (if any) coming from genetics. The criteria that most people use to determine if someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s different are environmental ones, not genetic (with the obvious exceptions of things such as sex and natural hair/skin/eye colour and even then most people have artificial skin/hair colours). I wasn't calling you racist but the idea that we are all different is the sole reason why it still exists. Ever hear about how black people are more athletic, black people are less intelligent, asianÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are good at maths etc. has everything to do with the perception that we have genetic differences, when in fact there is no evidence to suggest different races have different genetic traits.

When the foetus exhibits a normal brainwave would be the easiest identifier. The cow isn't the same species as us and has no protections (it isn't endangered; it has no conservation movement behind it). Being human is more valuable because we naturally want our species to dominate even if it means stepping over other species to get there. Of course you can abort the child if it is brain-dead, 3rd trimester is only used as an average. If the foetus is born without a brain then it would be technically dead, but if the baby doesn't exhibit a normal brainwave then sure abort it.

It's not a cheap shot, you should have used given me something more solid; when I get lazy, other people are quick to pounce on me. People like to think that their unique and important but we are almost exactly the same as everyone else. We share more then 99.9% of the same DNA so even if you are made from your parents you still are more then 99.85% similar to any one parent; I don't think anyone would call 99.85% different to 99.9%. In the real world we consider values such as >2-5% difference to be unreasonable, 0.1% on the other hand would be wonderful for every day use. Thinking we are different and special is the reason why racism still exists.

When the foetus has a functioning brain; this occurs some time in the third trimester. I draw the line here because it is the organ which we associate human qualities with (life and consciousness) without it there isn't much the body can do other then exist because it is being nourished.

All cells that undergo mitosis have their own DNA. DNA replication isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect so each cell made on your body has slightly different DNA; better not peel that skin off your arm because it has its own human DNA and is the same species as the parent. Just because it has DNA doesn't make it intrinsically human, sperm, skin, nerve cells etc. are intrinsically human; it isn't that only thing that makes us human. Without a functioning brain you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a human full stop, you can feed a body nutrients to live but without the brain it's just an empty body. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the problem with foetuses they have no brains and just absorb nutrients that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s given (much like a plant). There is nothing stopping someone from killing it before it becomes a human, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the point of being pro-choice. However this doesn't allow anyone to abort the child; aborting against the mothers will infringes upon the rights of the mother much like physical assault or theft would. I assume youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re against chopping down trees and stepping on insects. Even if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re a vegan youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re still going to kill other animals indirectly through living. Even if you restrict this argument to just humans, there is no new DNA; it is a rehash of old DNA. If the foetus could spontaneously create its own new DNA and had a functioning brain then I would think you have an argument. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a reaction without and action and in many cases the action doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist, making a foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a special thing; we ignore it more often then not.

Hey I heard GW Bush canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t open doors; confirm/deny? I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know why this thread is still open; it provides nothing constructive and makes me weep for the future of humanity. If you think the war was a pawn game for Bush and his fellow oil well owners youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re crazy. Spending untold billions of dollars and having low approval rating is definitely not worth the trade off for a few more million (if that) profit on your company. Or you know that Saddam Hussein pretended to have chemical weapons to deter countries like Israel from attacking them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4837276.stm Oh snap! :roll: :roll: :roll:

GM crops are no different to things like synthetic insulin, cutting and pasting the genetic information you know already works into something else to make it stronger. Most of these GM crops take a decade to come into use, similar time frames to when drugs come into common use. Saying something bad might happen is like saying you might get struck by lightning. So it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t improve yields and isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t disease resistant so why are we using these inferior seeds?

I heard Elvis didn't die, he got abducted by aliens and is coming back any moment now; I'm not the one being fooled by the goof ball doctors. If you have proof then you can PM, if you like. Do you have citations of documents that show Bush owning any Iraqi oil companies? Sounds like someone is being spoon-fed by the anti-bush media.

Probably doesn't matter to anyone in Australia yet (The academic year starts at the new year) but for what it's worth I go to Sydney http://www.usyd.edu.au. Doing a BSc in either: Physics, Computational Science or History & Philosophy of Science (physics possibly with one of the others); couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be happier with the school, they have strong departments in everything I want to learn (with one of the few Computational Science departments in the country). IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve heard that if you wake up at any university in Australia you'll know youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re at Griffith by the mess on the boards. They are the one of the only places where the lecturers don't rub the boards down after a lecture; you guys lost a pretty kick [wagon] HPS lecturer to us.

WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s doing ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅgoodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Yes but you can't possibly predict if you receive a good outcome (you need to have the good means in order to facilitate the result, which is required in your ethical viewpoint) itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why two different ethical approaches exist. You can always have good motives but sometimes bad things just happen no matter how good your intentions, whereas on the other hand if something bad did happen you might be willing to step on some moral toes to correct the problem; everyone strikes some balance between these two ideas. You can't have it both ways otherwise this whole argument between means and ends wouldn't exist. Lets say you offer a piece of gum to someone, for all you know they could be distracted chewing and get hit by a car; freak results like these occur all the time, its called chaos. The world is described by a non-linear system, one that you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know and even if you did is impossible to be easily computed moment to moment; taking a second longer to offer the gum can give a life or death result. Being good and expecting good results is really a cop-out way of looking at things, by your definition no one can be good.

Anyone that says "no" has absolutely no conscious, how can you live with yourself that you let someone die every 8 seconds due to your inaction? A lack of action is the action of not acting, in deciding not to kill 500 people (even if it had members of your family in it) your condemning millions to a death you could have prevented; such a thing is worse then HitlerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s genocide. Indiscriminately killing 500 people isn't a call to action for a return to the pure white race; nice comparison to Hitler, pity itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a troll.

The foetus canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do so because it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t alive; a foetus doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t develop a brain wave pattern until into the third trimester. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognise the foetus as a child/baby/human much in the same way you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognise sperm and ova as children. A beating heart and breathing lungs doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really determine being alive anymore, you can still stop beating and be revived. Brain death was introduced to try and have a more definitive definition of death; an organ donor who is brain dead, usually has their heart and lungs artificially working (like a foetus) in order to keep the organs healthy for the transplant recipient (or in the case of the foetus, the baby). In this case the organ donor is an empty shell, it is missing the most important part of humans; a functioning brain, all other organs exist to serve the brain. The foetus is no different to an organ donor, except it has the ability to develop a functioning brain; until that time comes it is just a structure. I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t put my child in a position where it was smart enough and wanted to have a career in which I couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t afford the associated tuition. The freedom to do what you want is more important then having loving parents; your parents could have died in a crash but you can still have a fulfilling life. On the other the other hand having the most loving parents canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you escape the fact you work in a job you despise, every time you wake up and knowing you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t escape it because tuition is too expensive. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a hell of a lot easier for a father to cut and run. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hear about women who abandon their children and dodging child support, it is impossible to have biological equity; its kind of like that saying, man are from Mars and women are from Venus. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying your wrong but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t argue solely from the experiences as a male. The ends justifying the means is considered consequentialism in the ethical community, it is just as logical as deontology (motive based ethics). Both have the same draw backs, you can get bad results with good motives, and you can get bad motives with good results; it is not bad logic, you just believe in deontology more then consequentialism. If I feel they should have been aborted, then they would have been; if they were magically alive and are not mentally [developmentally delayed]ed then yes I would tell them they were an unwanted pregnancy (When they are mature enough to be told such a thing). You can love a child and still regret its existence; a few people here imply thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the case. There is a case like this going to court, parents are suing for negligence because the birth was wrongful (it wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have taken place if the doctor informed them). These parents still love their [developmentally delayed]ed child but if given the choice they would have aborted (I would post the article but it is long).

Of course it's fair, a car crash is prematurely ending someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s life much like abortion prematurely ends a foetuses life; killing people is also killing the chance for them to bring another life into the world. Watching someone "grow" with lamellar ichthyosis (also know as Harlequin fetus) is worse then watching a car crash, it is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot of disgusting things). Nature isn't always beautiful; here and there it rears its ugly head. So why doesn't the foetus sacrifice its life for the mother and die? The foetus couldn't care less if it wants to live or not, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re the one thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s caring for it. If you were more concerned with other people (instead of your ideology), like people who want abortions maybe you wouldn't be so quick to write off their pleas. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the point of having a child you can't afford, how would you give them an opportunity to live a good life without money? Your just as selfish (you ideally want everyone to think they same way as you) if not more so then the people that want abortions.

Your still aborting a foetus in both situations, so whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between them again? Just seems like you don't like what some people call "fun", I bet your parents wouldn't like what you call "fun" either. I bet you do something I don't approve of either, who's to say who gets an abortion and who doesn't?

Read my post again, I already told you the answer. The foetus isn't technically alive so you can't call it murder; you can't murder a dead person, you can't murder a tree and you can't murder a foetus, Get your facts straight. Yeah abortion seems to be a way out of trouble, but canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you say that about anything that makes life easier. Why arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you using the stove to cook your food instead of the microwave, it just seems like your using the microwave to stay out of trouble. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use a microwave to stay out of trouble; you use it because it makes more sense to use it rather then the stove. Maybe like the microwave, people abort not to stay out of trouble but because it makes sense for them to abort the child rather then keeping it. Comparing drugs to abortion is ridiculous, you get the opposite of a high when you get an abortion; all kinds of pain.

So why don't we kill handicapped people? Some of them don't have a say. Situation: #1 Mother has baby, baby is born handicapped. Mother dosn't want the responsiblity so kills handicaped baby. #2 My gramma can't take care of her self she cant live independently, so does her caretaker have the right to muder her becuase she dosn't want the responsiblity? It is all murder. Killing is killing. There-is-no-reason-to-take-another's-life. Handicapped people have a brainwave; foetuses don't in the first two trimesters (where abortion is legal). You can keep a brain dead person "alive" (having a beating heart) by artificially keeping then nourished (by having things like a feeding tube), the foetus is no different. A foetus is basically a husk of a living person; since it doesn't have a brain wave into the third trimester, it shouldn't be considered alive until then. #1 a [developmentally delayed]ed baby has a brainwave so it is alive and can't be killed, a foetus on the other hand is brain dead into the third trimester. #2 Same as 1, however if your grandmother can't communicate then her medical proxy has the power to give orders (such as pulling out life-support and refusing to let her be resuscitated) on her behalf; sometimes it is better to let someone die instead of continuously holding out for the same out come. Keep your grieving period to a minimum and move on with life. Killing a foetus is like killing a tree, they are living and organic objects but they are not alive in the sense that we are, so its not murder; get it into your head. When can you think of a reason to chop down a tree, more often then murdering someone I bet!

You might feel that guns should be banned but I doubt your opinion is of the majority in the pro-life camp. How about banning other things like pocket knifes or books detailing how to build weapons; it doesn't just stop at guns. Forcing a woman to carry through to a child puts tremendous and unnecessary pressure on her by outside influences (parents, partner, family and friends) to keep the child (its alive so you may as well look after it) when she might not want it. It's coercing mothers (generally the poorer mothers) into becoming a housewife before they are ready to (since they can't afford things like child care). If you want to keep a woman for your own, what a better way of doing it then getting her pregnant and giving her a reason for sticking around? You might not see it that way but there a plenty of people out there that do and others that want it that way. If you want to keep it simple, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty much what I mean. Things like Mathematics and Logic have axioms which define the framework in which propositions are made. For example I was recently taught the 10 axioms of vector subspaces and its pretty much head slapping stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty simple to follow and shows how much work is put into defining something so simple). Mathematics creates a framework where we can make useful predictions which correlate to the physical world. Given the Axioms of mathematics, you can go out and find useful information and make models of it, independent of everyone else. The problem with things like morals are that they have no simple axioms, there are no ground rules like addition, association or logic. If you attempt to define a set of axioms you can go out and find some sort of behaviour which contradicts the axiom. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the problem with hard and well defined set of morals; you can always go out and find a situation that contradicts the axiom. If there were a simple way to define what moral behaviour is we would have a simple set of rules by now (it's not like there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t any research being done), however thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the case. The inability for absolutism to come up with a solid set of universal rules, gives me the feeling that absolutism doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t work. A simple proof for 2 + 2 = 5 Axiom1: u + w = w + u Axiom2: u = w is an element of R; u + w = u + w + 1 = w + u + 1 = (w + u) + 1 = 2*u + 1 = 2*w + 1 If u = w = 2 then u + w = 4 + 1 = 5 This is true under my definition of addition of 2 identical numbers, however you know this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the case in real life. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve been fed the conventional idea of addition because it is the most useful; if it was more useful to add one whenever we add equal numbers then you would have been taught that (but this is not the case). There is no fundamental reason why we do things the way we do them other then we are lazy and take the easiest route; the universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell us how to add, we do. Why are we taught to reduce fraction or simplify something to the lowest common factor; either way it is still the correct solution, we just want something easy on the eyes. (Sorry if I repeated anything, didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really intend the tongue in cheek response to be so long and repetitive) P.S. Why do we write in Base 10? Answer: Look at your hands.

Not the New Testament, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the book that makes CHRISTianÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s CHRISTian; it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really matter anyway since Hinduism is the older religion. So Hitler and his followers are evidence for Nazism, they sacrificed their lives for a cause; do you think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a load of bull? Some people are misguided; belief in something doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t equate evidence for it.