NoMoreDead

Yeah :D Thanks for making me feel better :P Could be looking at 84 Slayer this weekend :D

Where do you believe we humans originate? Surely not macroevolution, the lack of evidence for that theory is laughable at best. [hide=Disclaimer]I say macroevolution is laughable. Obviously microevolution exists, but I have yet to see a species transform into one that is completely different.[/hide] You truly don't understand the concept of Macroevolution. You, like many other ignorant people who choose to ignore the massive amounts of evidence of transitional species, seem to be mistaking macroevolution for something other than what it really is. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time scale. Saying you believe in microevolution but you don't believe in macroevolution is like saying "I believe that someone can walk outside and grab the newspaper, but they surely cannot walk to the mall that is five miles away." I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me. I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated. I can't believe creationists are still playing the odds card. You want some outrageous odds? How about this: If God did indeed create the universe he must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe. What are the odds of a something being as complex as the entire universe, or as complex as all of existence. I think those odds dwarf your petty odds game. Not to mention the odds of an omniscient being who can see everything and can defy all physical laws being just about as bad. The odds of the molecules found in every object in the room you're currently in forming to be as they are at the present moment are so slim that it's not worth considering the possibility of it actually being a reality. Still, we never question this. It seems that creationists only pick and choose which odds cards they'd like to play and neglect the fact that the world around them is filled to the brim with improbability.

Steel Drags task brings me this clue:

Mens, how did you get to be so damn cool? :P Working once again on 99 Mage. Slaying various creatures. Just got a steel drags task so that'll help.

Whatever comes next, it'll probably come about along the guidelines Bertrand Russell's teapot theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I agree with your first point, but apparently I didn't make mine as clear as I would've liked to. What I mean is, the world would never end in terms of extinction of all life because you would be immortal. That is what I meant by "end of the world". I should've cleared that up. I understand your second point as well, but again it appears I misused my words and didn't write clearly. I think that the best part of life is that as you age, you change over time in physical forms. You'd always remember what you were like when you we're 15, 20, ect., but you'd never change from the age that you stop aging at (in this case, 30). That's what I meant by "You'd wake up and see the same person in the mirror every day for eternity." I don't see why those are strict examples. All of life (except yourself, of course) would eventually be extinct one way or another, and if you stop aging physically you would obviously see the same you every day.

If God did exist, I wouldn't see our lives as some sort of "test". I think of it this way. We'd all be fragments of "God" and he'd disperse us (or himself, rather) throughout space and then he could experience this great universe that he created via all of our unique perceptions. Kind of like The Sims where you can create an awesome amusement park and then be one of the tourists so you could enjoy the park as a consumer instead of the producer. We're all "fragments" of God? He's got a lot of pieces, then. Going to be tough to put humpty dum-- excuse me, God back together. On a more serious note (although I can't be sure how serious), don't you think that if God sees all and knows all he's pretty much seen it all? Also, you said "universe" when you mentioned what God would be experiencing through us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've not gone too far into this universe. We've seen such a small fraction of this universe, so there is no reason to suggest that God is experiencing it though us.

Living forever would be horrifying. You'd never see the end of the world. You're living FOREVER. The world can never end if someone is still alive. You'll watch everyone and everything you've EVER loved die. For eternity. You'll never have true love forever. I don't understand the aging thing. Think about it. If you stopped aging at 30, you would wake up everyday and see the same thing. For eternity. You'd always remember what it was like in the past (meaning you'll always remember what it was like to be young, and miss that forever) but you'll never progress forward. Every agonizing thing you've ever witnessed would be a memory locked into you forever, and every happy memory would simply die because the person/place you created that memory with/at would die or change. I think living for a limited period of time allows humans to find a purpose in life. We can only do so much with our time, so it's best to have a sense of urgency knowing that tomorrow you could be dead at any point in time. Life is best kept limited.

*Misses Mens* :cry:

Well thought out, Teeg :D. Really laughed quite a bit.

Reb isn't doing anything wrong. I don't understand why you feel like you have to "step up" and be some sort of police force excluding Reb from the discussion. There are plenty of people who diserve to be ignored in this conversation, but rather than ignoring them we respond to them and deconstruct their arguments. Reb is not one of them. Reb is doing the forum a great justice by logically disproving others arguments by use of facts and knowledge. He uses sarcasm a lot, and if you can't deal with that, you're going to have to step aside and watch from a distance. Perhaps sometimes he over-uses the sarcasm, but I haven't seen an instance yet as to when he's taken things too far. Some people don't respond to anything other than sarcastic comments directed at their arguments tagged with a solid counter-argument. Seriously, if you have this big of an issue with Reb, perhaps it is YOU who should move along. Do not act as if you have the right to say who's voice should be heard, because YOU are NOT God, and you have no right to tell people what to do. On a side note: The fact that you refer to responding to Reb as "Wasting forum space" is hilarious. Do you know what the topic of this is? It's a GIANT waste of space. Your response is just a small piece of the huge puzzle, my misguided friend.

Hm. Ending the human race? I think that we will cause our own destruction, and I'm pretty confident in thinking some sort of nuclear attack will likely start a chain reaction of horrifying destruction.

ONE Taser is too many. Period. I don't care what the kid said. I mean, he was obviously dillusional from the fall. Regaurdless of what they knew about his situation, they neglected numerous courses of action. If they thought he was intoxicated, why not smell him to see if he reeks of anything? If the kid had his hands under his stomach, how hard is it to grab him by the wrists and pull them out? If he had a knife, he wouldn't have gotten a stab in. If he had a gun, he couldn't have had any chance to fire a lethal shot. There is no reason to not take every possible course of action before hitting a kid multiple times with a taser. I don't understand the necessity for a taser shot at all.

That's what I was thinking. If they found weapons.. you got to take it seriously. I mean, I don't know. This stuff is upsetting. Props on the Tim McIlrath avatar, and chamber the cartridge lyrics by the way. Great band. Thanks. Rise is amazing. Love everything I've heard and loved them live twice. OT: I really respect JaGex for doing everything possible to help to police. IP leading to address, ect. Really great attention to detail, and some good luck as well.

Damn. If this guy was really going to go through with it, he could have done some serious damage. Dozens of lives could have easily been taken. Well done, JaGex.

[hide=][/hide] Welcome to America. This is the biggest wad of crap. I'd really like to find out how he ended up where he did, though.

Are you honestly suggesting that we're more morally "sound" than the rest of the world? That's a laugher. Do you know what the status quo is? While I think this is a somewhat decent idea, it would never fly in this country. I think that there should be a stricter compotence evaluation, but that just isn't in the best intrests of Americans. Too many people would respond as follows.

Life. ...and my birthday.

For the love of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, stop talking. And you know, maybe start reading. For the sake of being productive in my suggestions, if nothing else. Someone (else) had to say it. The fact that you referred to Evolution and the Big Bang Theory as "10% of science" gave me the best laugh I've had in a while.

Was the intention of this statement to be incredibly ironic?

This is probably the funniest thing I've seen in the last 24 hourse. Quite a discovery. :P

Native Language: English. Studied (Basic's only): French, Latin. Studied (In-depth): Spanish, Portuguese. Studying: German.

Don't even get me started on "The morals of a Christian nation". I could rip that argument six ways to Sunday. It's too easy to do so. With all the contradicting viewpoints among Christians and the fact that "abomonations" are allowed legally completely destroy that argument. Morally "wrong" practices which are legal: -Abortion -"The Sin against Nature" -Gay Marriage (Limited, sadly) -Prostitution (Limited) -Gambling

The letter was written in reference to the first amendment. "The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept." "Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" Here's some more examples, including the turning point where this whole idea was apparently tossed aside. "The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[18]" It's no myth. It's what the founding fathers based a lot of their decisions on. The Supreme Court needs to uphold it 100%.

WATCH: A few quotes: "He's (Barack Obama) not a Christian! This is a Christian nation!" "She (Sarah Palin) is filled with the holy spirit, and I think she's going to bring honesty and integrity into the White House" "Just the whole Muslim thing and everything - and a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11 but - I don't know it's a little un-nerving." Church and State are NOT separated. We uphold the Constitution on so many levels, but for some reason this gets a free pass.