warri0r45

Then please do so I can apologise profusely. As for the person coming to my door in all honesty I'd likely ask them to show me something totally novel about thier religion which I've probably never heard before and after doing so, if it's nothing new, I'd likely say thanks but no thanks. If you'd like to sell me your religion I'd love to hear something that I've likely never heard before. I mean something interesting as hell (not literally; I'd imagine hell is a pretty monotonous place, lol :P ). Shoot me through a PM if you'd like. But again, if you could, which it seems you'd have no problem in doing, show me where I was as you accuse me and I'll apologise to you.

Oh, Trapical, perhaps you can help. How does memory work on a biochemical level? Is there some sort of recognised neuron firing sequence or pattern? Anyway, aside from that, what did you think of my little genetics 101 spiel regarding meiosis, independant assortment and crossing over a few pages back? :oops: :P

Heh, no worries at all. :P Always happy to be shown where I went wrong so I can learn something new.

I don't think taking a stance on an issue makes you close minded at all. It's your ability to be receptive to the fact you may be wrong or that there is another way of looking at things which makes you open minded. I'm not understanding where some people are getting the idea that if you take a stance, you're automatically close minded. Open-minded Close-minded

Not a Les Paul. A variant of an ES possibly. The input jack is in an odd position.

Yeah but scepticism is such a ridiculous cop out argument if we looked at things philosophically To be honest I'm not really at all into philosophy. My bag is almost exclusively science. Tell you what, give me a philosophical argument for something and I'll tell you where I stand in terms of philosophy on the issue.

On an even more basic level one could ask is it close minded to think it is always wrong to hurt an innocent person? Is it close minded to think it is wrong to force someone to starve? If you take those positions then a person isn't being "open minded" to the alternative. I can't exactly see what that has to do with what I quoted but if those things make me closed minded, so be it. I don't particularly care when it comes to those points.

I'd agree on some points. On matters of opinion, I'm not here to tell anyone that my opinion is right or that someone elses is wrong. I don't care about my opinion so much as getting other people to think by challenging thiers. But, on matters of fact, evidence, observations and verifiable tests, I don't consider it at all closed minded to go with what science would theorise and critically conclude. You may, and I wouldn't at all mind, say I'm closed minded by demanding evidence and being a critically thinking, skeptical human being. In doing so I'm not saying the claimant must be wrong in what they propose, I'm inviting them to prove to me that they are right in terms I, as a piece of flesh with eyeballs, eardrums, nerve cells, tastebuds and an olfactory system, can percieve. I'll recognise I'm a limited human being. Skepticism, empiricism and methodological naturalism are some of my limits. Aside from that, I'm not saying they are realities limits. I'm agnostic as well as atheist. The former comes from accepting I don't know a certain something and the latter comes from the lack of evidence for the same certain something and the presence of skepticism.

If it's a choice, perhaps you can explain the quotes I presented on page 1. Also, why would I choose to be gay if - a) I have natural biological urges and attractions towards women? B) I would be looked down on by an unaccepting society?

Thanks. Wait hey that was insulting! And i dont stereotype u G'day saying Australian person who wants to put shrimps on the barby! I just regurgitated what you said. It's not like I flat out called you an idiot for no reason. Besides that, it is idiotic, if you can get around the emotiveness of the word, to stereotype through ignorance. Go to your room. Also, how come white people never take yo mama jokes as seriously as black people? No im nost being racist. Just asking. I have black friends ftw You shouldn't be so quick to take offence. I never said you are an idiot nor do I think you are. I said an action was idiotic, mirroring what you said. The action is independant of the person. If I tell you 'that was a stupid thing to do,' do you think I'm calling you stupid? You need to read between the lines a little before jumping to conclusions.

What if we turned this on it's head entirely. What if there were a class of tyrannical, power-crazed elite that proffer conspiracy theories to try and create a flase 'us vs. them' mentality so the credulous and docile will be scared into being anti-establishment. Under this guise, what if they then plan on garnering this support so that they can implement a new world order? Does this sound any more unbelievable than the idea that governments, being ruled by a power-crazed elite, are creating terrorist ideologies and attacking themselves to instill fear into the masses via a false 'us vs. them' mentality and using this sharade to establish a new world order? I don't know. I don't really care that much either.

Yeah. I was talking about the speed of light from the sun to Earth is 8 seconds or minute (I believe it's minutes), and if the sun were to some how be sucked into a black hole, moved, exploded, etc, we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes due to the speed of light. Sorry but I don't think thats right. Think about it.. if the sun were to blow up... you really think that we would wait 8 min for us to feel the impact? I think we would feel the impact as soon as it were to happen. we would all die in mili seconds and wouldn't even know. But that is just my theory (now no one become rich of my brain noob lol) Also about the break light speed I think is impossible and even it were possible it would be useless... why? Because you are going faster then light so technically everything would be dark, pitch black, If you were to turn on a flash light instead of going forward it would go backwards. you would get to places so fast but you wouldn't be able to see anything. Unless you went like 1,000 miles below light speed I think its not very smart :P I remember seeing something on a program called elegant universe where they compared the scenarios of Newton's vision of Gravitation to Einstien's. Newton's was an instantaneous vision, as you discribe, and Einstien's was (and is; still in use today as I understand) General Relativity, which put the action of gravity at the speed of light, so we would not get flung out into a wild trajectory until 8 minutes after the explosion of the sun. Einstien's idea of gravity conforms best with our obsevations, as I understand, so you may be wrong. Not only would all the nasty gamma rays and such, which travel at the speed of light, reach us 8 minutes after the event, the gravitational consequences would to. Feel free to correct, anyone.

Haha, no. I'd sound like a tool (if I don't already :uhh: :P )

1) It depends if there's been a selective pressure for them to become taller. They don't just become taller because they need to unless there's some pressure on short women or a reproductive advantage for tall women. 2) Compared to other animals, my understanding is that our eyesight is generally poor. Something to do with a blood vessel running over the optic nerve causing a blind spot and genetic predispositions to eye problems among some people being kept in the gene pool due to the modern way of life, the ability to help our fellow man and modern medicine. Other animals, such as birds of prey who need to see small targets from long off, had and have a higher pressure for keen eyesight and thus those with keen eyesight prosper and proliferate. 3) Because, I'm assuming, they are holding onto a grudge mentality passed on by others as if they are still being victimised. Sometimes they still do get victimised for the colour of thier skin and this is wrong and unjust. They are equals and that means we are on the same level; if a white person uses the word 'black' in the same descriptive fasion as when they call someone 'white,' I don't see an issue.

Thanks. Wait hey that was insulting! And i dont stereotype u G'day saying Australian person who wants to put shrimps on the barby! I just regurgitated what you said. It's not like I flat out called you an idiot for no reason. Besides that, it is idiotic, if you can get around the emotiveness of the word, to stereotype through ignorance.

Better stop eating apples and almonds then. Fact of the day: apples and almonds contain trace amounts of cyanide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide#Occurrence

At least you admit it's idiotic to stereotype through ignorance.

The purple monkey is real. Let's start a religion. You're wrong. Pastafarianism is the only true religion. Worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster and only the FSM. The Pope said so. :P

Mt Dew baby. Caffiene pwns. And i still dont think its a drug, no matter how much nerd...i mean scientific evidence you give me. Coke ftw! You don't need evidence to tell you it's a drug. It's classed as a drug due to it's chemical nature and action and is an addictive substance. I don't see what the issue is here.

1. I have no clue. 2. Cuz they get rich. Gold diggers ftl. 3. Cuz they too stupid to give it to me. 4. Cause you just plain suck :D 5. By rock, you mean metal right? 1. Yes. Actually im pretty sure it would pass underneath you. 2. Dont let a fly in your car. Ouch. Please, listen to the album Catch 33 by Meshuggah and then tell me they have no instrumental skills. :lol: :P

Go tell a suffering child that they would have been better off aborted, then. Less emotion. Developed children would obviously be upset if you did that but a conglomeration of undifferentiated cells will not. I'm sure if the conglomeration of undifferentiated cells knew what you were telling it, it would be pretty pissed off. The entire point I'm trying to make is that if assassin truly believes what he is saying then he won't care if the child is upset. Maybe I'll rephrase it. Do you think a suffering child wishes that they were aborted? Why not ask them? If, but that's impossible. You shouldn't try to assign qualities to something which dosen't have those qualities so you can compare it with something else. In this case, you shouldn't say 'if the conglomeration of cells knew...' and then compare that to a child that does know. It's making a case against my hypothetical, which involved a conglomeration of cells, by invoking a fully aware child. Two drastically different things. It's a variant of the potential argument. You're speculating an obvious outcome, i.e. that a child aware of it's existance dosen't want to die and rather wants to live, by bypassing the state of the conglomeration of cells now in order to make an emotional argument... all based on an emotionless conglomeration of undifferentiated cells. And to your question I don't think any child wishes they were aborted (so you got the answer you were looking for) yet a child was not what I was referring to in my hypothetical. A conglomeration of cells isn't aware or fearful for it's existance.

The space shuttle can go 18 times the speed of light. Fake, right?... :|

The purple monkey is real. Let's start a religion.

Go tell a suffering child that they would have been better off aborted, then. Less emotion. Developed children would obviously be upset if you did that but a conglomeration of undifferentiated cells will not.

This reminds me of a Bill Hicks comedy piece about controlling bodies presenting a warped view of drugs through the media to keep people in line and docile. Let me estimate the routine for you, speaking from Bill's perspective. Major lols courtesy of Bill. My perspective is if it in no way harms me or anyone else in any way, do what you want. I can't see why I should have control over you as a human being if If you're not harming me in any way, shape or form. If the action of drugs does harm me or anyone, however, I don't endorse it. I'm not prepared to accept the fairly one sided view of drugs presented by the media. People like Bill Hicks make a strong case for responsible drug use. Now people often won't take the kind of position I am. Possibly because they have an emotional knee-jerk reaction from a number of taught pre-concieved notions. As I stated on the abortion topic - Note that this is a hypothetical and drugs and related issues usually do have a lot of grey area to consider.