warri0r45

The best experience, and I endorse this personally, is listening to the whole thing start to finish. It's techincally one continuous song divided into 13 sections. A great concept album about paradoxes. Man, when I bought it, I listened to it 4 times through straight away. I love it.

It can't be logically explained yet "logically, it's totally possible." :?: Do you see something wrong with your argument? He/she probably meant that there is no scientific explanation to miracles. However, logically it works fine. If there is a God, miracles are possible. If there is nothing beyond science, miracles are impossible. I'm sorry but this is empty logic at best. If I told you an invisible purple monkey that could form elements with an atomic number of 1000 (impossible) existed, then forming elements with an atomic number of 1000 is possible, what would you think? The downfall here is assuming the defined being exists and exists as defined. So am I in my example. It's obviously true that if the christian god exists, miracles would be possible but this is far from having any meaning or argumentative value because the christian god is assumed to exist and assumed to exist as defined when the defined characteristsics are more assumptions. It's equally as logically obvious that if a monkey which creates elements of atomic number 1000 existed, elements of atomic number 1000 would be logically possible. Please read. Decay rates are proved to be constant and with some dating methods, the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes proved to be known. Please don't neglect the other 40 or so dating methods and think you're giving unbiased coverage by harping on about carbon dating.

1)What? No, you can't alter your genes. Doing so causes death of the cell. Your genes just make you "aggressive" or "intelligent" it's not like they set your fate. The Soviet Union actually believed that you could alter one's genes, since they refused to believe the Genetics theories put forth by the Americans. So the leader of Russia's agriculture ordered everyone to freeze their plant's seeds before they planted them. He thought that is he showed the seeds cold weather when it was a seed, when the seed grew the new cells would have genes that helped them in frost. This was obviously false, freezing the seeds made most of them sterile. This led to the complete collapse of the USSR's wheat production which starved the country and destroyed the economy, which led to the end of the Cold War. 2) Heh, as some of you might remember, I already answered this question throughly in my final post of the series "Ten Day's Ten Threads" :P 3) New singers or rock bands don't need skill. They need to know someone in the business. An example was done to show just how easily any random person can become a popstar if she knows the right people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rHGo-EvY3Q If I could just add to number (1) (cool story by the way, silly russians :P ) - Genes are not altered in our lifetime based on our actions. They are altered (manipulated or rearranged is perhaps the better word), however, during the process of meiosis in producing sex cells such as sperm or eggs. What happens is that in my production of sperm, my chromosome number is halved from 46 to 23. The 46 I started off with, whose genetic material you possess in every cell of your body, is essentially 2 copies of all of the genes you need; one set from either parent. So to sum that up, you, as a fully formed human being, have cells with 23 chromosomes from mum and 23 from dad. It's important to note at this stage that a pair of a specific chromosome, one being from mum and one from dad, are said to be homologous. This means that they both carry the same genes, just variations of those genes. Note that above I stated you have 2 copies of genes, meaning they both have the same genes, yet with different variations of these genes on each. Think of having either brown or blue eyes when I say a variation of a gene. Now what happens in producing sex cells and halving this number from 46 to 23 are two key processes to make you unique from both mum and dad. The first is a process called independant assortment, which means when your chromosomes line up along a cell equator to be sepearated (46 along the equator to be separated to 23 in each daughter cell), whose chromosome (i.e. the one you got from mum or the one you got from dad) goes to which daughter cell is random. They are said to assort independantly of each other i.e. whether one sperm get's one of mum's 23 or one of dad's 23 is random; you could get either in any given sperm cell. As a result of this, different genes on different chromosomes are said to sort independnantly of each other, which gives you a random combination of both mum and dad's genes. To put this another way, taking 2 genes into consideration, a possible offspring could have blue eyes and brown hair, brown eyes and brown hair, blue eyes and black hair or brown eyes and black hair. All of this assuming that genes for eye colour and hair colour lie on different chromosomes. (If you're not confused by this point you're doing well!!) The second process is called crossing over in which segments of two homologous chromosomes, one of mum's and one of dad's, swap in order to get an even more varied selection of genes. This is viable for the simple reason that (hopefully this soulds familiar) homologous chromosomes carry exactly the same genes but just variations of those genes. To put that another way, mum's chromosome in a homologous pair could have a gene for brown eye colour. Dad's chromosome in that same homologous pair will have the same gene, but it might code for blue eye colour (just to reiterate). Now to make things even more confusing, saying that our actions in life don't alter our genes isn't neccessarily true. Mutations induced by working in a chemical or nuclear industry and having some unfortunate accidents can induce mutational change your genes, but only for those cells the mutations effect. I'd ignore this point and focus on the meiotic genetic rearrangements stated above. Ok, back on track now and to the final part of the cycle. After both the processes of independnant assortment and crossing over have taken place in forming 4 new cells from one parent cell (as is the case in meiosis summarised by 46 duplicated to 92, separated to 46 in 2 cells, further separated to 23 in 4 cells [for more information, see the meiosis wikipedia link]), what happens is the obvious fertilization statge where the newly formed sperm and egg combine after sex. This gives you 23 + 23 = 46 chromosomes to form one whole, functioning zygote. Oh man (Ignore this next bit). Add Mendelian Inheritance on top of that and I'll have confused myself beyond belief. :XD: Feel free to correct me on anything Trapical, I might have missed something or made an error. :XD: So finally, to DegenerateX, if my ramblings weren't up to scratch or at all confusing (which I'm thinking right now they are), here are the topics for you to study if you so desire: Meiosis independant assortment crossing over

Perhaps someone who is pro-life could put my mind at ease by first answering this line of questioning - And on getting pregnant being thier fault, of course, it sometimes is, but you do know even the most cautious out there do get pregnant, don't you? It's the kind of thing where it's ease of happening is wildly difficult on one end of the scale and it slides down to one bonk with protection and you've cracked it (sorry for the crudeness :lol: ). Saying they should face the consequences, from my perspective, dosen't get us anywhere. If they make a mistake and did not plan well enough for a baby, chances are they won't be able to provide for it as well as they could have if they waited a few years and planned a life together. I want a happy world where people, rather than ideologies, have control over things. Have the belief, fine, but recognise accidents do happen and they aren't always as stupid or irresponsible as you think. Recognise the mother and father here are the ones that decide, not you. So on that, if you could, answer my question above.

In Death - Is Life - Meshuggah.

Thanks. Good to see we can come to a consensus on some of these points. My position is to take it for what it is - a serious situation, and a serious situation requires serious thought and consideration. My view is just that the mother should not be denied options, no matter what they are or how controversial they may be. You are pro-life and that's fine by me.

Haha, no worries. :)

A why would be nice. Perhaps you could answer the question I posed in a previous post. Which post? And to your post above and may others that youve made speaking scientifically, SPEAK FREAKING ENGLISH. Thank you for reading this. This thread is brought to you by my not yet adult brain and my finger tips. I was referring to this. I think you're smart enough to understand. If not, just google.

No, no. Not at all. I'll give you a clue at what I'm referring to - I could tell you what it is straight up by going by the way this place runs and the devisiveness of the topic, I'd better not or this thread will turn into a flame war. But don't worry, definately not referring to you. Edit: By the way, I realised I was semantically challenged so I edited the post. For the record, the 'he' in that first paragraph was referring to myself as an example. Perhaps you'll be able to work your way around my sloppy semantics and figure out what my questioning is alluding to. My clarity in writing wasn't great.

(1) Let's explore this notion by considering going back to the zygote level - the moment of fusion between sperm and egg. Still murder? (2) Of course, you should think about it and not do anything, including the descision to abort, hastily. (3) Of course, not a good enough excuse. But ask yourself, who actually uses this as an excuse to abort? I would have thought not many people or only those severely ignorant of the gravity of the situation they've got themselves in. (4) Good thing they're not that inhumane or barbaric anymore, yeah? If that actually does go on at all, which I seriously doubt it does, I'm apalled. (5) You shouldn't let anecdotal individual stories sway your opinion. (6) I fully support a mother seeking support and exhausting all other alternatives before doing something as drastic as abortion. But, having said that, it's not my choice to make, so It's important to note I'll not interject and make it for her. (not suggesting you would. Having your view on the issue is fine) Let me go with that last point and ask everyone here this -> who feels they have the right to interject into the descision making process of a mother considering to abort and stop them from making such a descision because you have views different to them?

I'd really like to know why some people insist on assuming answers to difficult questions when there are only unverifiable ideas and then why some of these people act as if it's odd or wierd when someone is truly honest with themselves and dosen't pretend to know the answers to these questions. I'd also like to know why those being honest in not pretending to be privy to these answers are thought to be untrustworthy, hateful, unbalanced and are constantly misrepresented. But... I kind of do know the answers to these questions. It's the way society and parenting works. Mother -> child -> accept, repeat. Mother -> child -> accept, repeat. I'll leave it up to your gray matter to fill in my blank and unspecific musings.

If extreme, experimental, grooving, discordant, dissonant metal is not your bag, just know you were warned. :P

A why would be nice. Perhaps you could answer the question I posed in a previous post.

I'm pro-choice. I don't care if you do get an abortion or not because it's your right as an individual human being to make a descision which harms no-one else independant of me instructing you as to what I think you should do. And emotional harm because of pre-concieved beliefs is not harm. And, aborting a conglomeration of cells not yet with a differentiated nervous system is not harm. Take the emotion out of it and you may see things the same way. If someone would like to take me up on it, please tell me how an act which in no way effects you and effects the descision maker for the better is wrong (assuming, hypothetically, that the descision does in fact help the descision maker and eliminating all peripheral possibilities).

For a photon of light energy to be reflected it must first be absorbed by an electron, thus making the object once at 0 Kelvin kinetically energetic and no longer at 0 Kelvin. So theoretically, an object must be invisible, i.e. absorb and emmit no light, to be near or at 0 Kelvin. Anyone more apt in areas of physics feel free to correct my thinking.

Perhaps you're a fan or perhaps you own this album. I just bought it and had to make a post. I think it's pure insanity organised into 47 minutes and 15 seconds of conceptual and paradoxical mastery. Your thoughts on the band or the album? Wow. This album is a new level of win. I love vocalist Jens Kidman's lyrical sense. The paradoxial musings are so well expressed. My favourite would have to be when he sings "The struggle to free myself from restraints, becomes my very shackles" and in the closer, "Sum", with the simple lines "Vision will blind, Severance ties, Median am I, True are all lies." Wow. I'm so beside myself right now. Meshuggah are god.

Why would something have to move in order to exist? I think he means in order to be seen, in which case he'd be right. The motion of electrons allows you to see matter it's part of. Edit: just read his reply. Interesting. I'll have to google the theory you're talking about, deathlord, because it's totally out there to me.

Interesting. Wonder if they'll ever get it to a theoretical 0 deg. Kelvin. Space is mostly vaccum and temperature is a property of matter. So, no particles, no temperature. But for the very few particles there are in deep space (something like one per meter cubed or something of that rediculous sparsity) there is always a background radiation of microwaves to keep kinetic energy of those particles above absolute zero. My incling is absolute zero is a mythical figure never observed and never will be anytime soon. It's more a mathematical backtrack from what we do know into what's theoretical. The furthur back we push to the limit, the more we realise about our correct or not so correct extrapolation of the figure.

Second year of bachelor of science undergraduate degree. Kind of mediocre.

* Cows burping emits CH4 (methane) Just a little fact of the day. Sorry ive always heard it was their farting. Not first time ive been wrong :oops: No neeed to apologise, I used to think it was thier farting too but it's what comes out of the other end apparantly. Go figure.

[hide] Considering abortion is killing(whether it's legally murder or not), anti-life sums it up well. If you're dumb enough to have sex, especially unprotected, abortion just seems like an immature, selfish way to get out of it. I personally couldn't care less what other teenagers choose, it's not my call to make. But I'm not getting into that before marriage. If you're dumb enough to sit out in the sun without sunscreen and don't put sunblock on, and get skin cancer. Don't get it removed you should live with your mistake. You're a moron. There is a huge difference between skin cancer and a HUMAN LIFE. Abortion is killing babies no matter how way you look at it. I don't see how you can justify it. You're using very emotive terms to define what abortion is. I could do the very same thing - abortion is a life planning and life affirming strategy by disposing of an undeveloped cellular product. You can spin any old view with the semantics you choose to use. Going off of that, would you class an act such as using the morning after pill or stem cell research to be 'baby killing'? If so, feel free to explain how a conglomeration of cells generally no more in number than 1000 (a conservative estimate) and with no definable features to be a baby. It has the potential to be a baby. Abortion is the killing of something that is not an actual baby but eventually will become a baby. My [bleep] can become a baby too. You want to put my [bleep] in a carriage and feed it milk? If your mom was pro choice, maybe she shoulda made the right one with you dude. If you cant come into a serious discussion and be mature about it, get out. Simple as that. Considering abortion is killing(whether it's legally murder or not), anti-life sums it up well. If you're dumb enough to have sex, especially unprotected, abortion just seems like an immature, selfish way to get out of it. I personally couldn't care less what other teenagers choose, it's not my call to make. But I'm not getting into that before marriage. If you're dumb enough to sit out in the sun without sunscreen and don't put sunblock on, and get skin cancer. Don't get it removed you should live with your mistake. You're a moron. There is a huge difference between skin cancer and a HUMAN LIFE. Abortion is killing babies no matter how way you look at it. I don't see how you can justify it. You're using very emotive terms to define what abortion is. I could do the very same thing - abortion is a life planning and life affirming strategy by disposing of an undeveloped cellular product. You can spin any old view with the semantics you choose to use. Going off of that, would you class an act such as using the morning after pill or stem cell research to be 'baby killing'? If so, feel free to explain how a conglomeration of cells generally no more in number than 1000 (a conservative estimate) and with no definable features to be a baby. It has the potential to be a baby. Abortion is the killing of something that is not an actual baby but eventually will become a baby. The potential argument... The billions of sperm and thousands of eggs wasted in a males/females life have the potential to become human life. Every of the 50 trillion cells of your body has the potential to make one you. Pick two cells, somehow perform meiosis on both, go through sexual recombination, etc, and you could potentially form an entirely different human being. Bits and pieces of random organisms genomes have the potential, via DNA enzymes and a little more manipulation, to become a human life. Food has the potential to become a human life (you are literally what you eat). Properly select the right proportions of 85-ish kilograms of food and you've got the material potential for one adult male. ------------------------------------------------- How about these for abstract ideas - don't perform abortions and you could potentially be allowing axe murderers or rapists to live. Don't allow a mother an abortion and she could have potentially been a cancer cure or multi-million dollar charity giver. ------------------------------------------------- Perhaps, if you'd like, give me an argument against abortion without adding potential. =D> I dont believe in abortion unless its in the most extreme circumstances as ive stated before. But you are very good at getting your point across, i cant even rebut anything you said because frankly, its above me. If i didnt have such strong beliefs in the matter, you would be the one to sway me sir :P [/hide] You shouldn't let something above you sway your opinion. Appeal to authority becuase they use big words or whatever isn't the way to go. (By the way I'm not trying to sound like an authority on anything - that's just the thing, I'm not, some people may just hear what I'm saying and go with it because it sounds smart and uses big numbers or whatever. Always be sure to question.) But yeah, that's fine if you have strong beliefs. I'm just here to provide a different view so we can all better judge our positions. It's a sign of being receptive to new ideas and to re-evaluating the worth of old ones if you're willing to hear other people out and consider what case they have to argue.

I'll be your exorcist. God is currently an unfalisfiable idea. Thus, it can not currently be proven nor disproven. There is as much 'blindness' in not accepting Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as they are all equally likely to exist. To top that off, there is a burden of proof on the claimant. Thus if I were to claim god exists, I would carry the burden. Likewise, if I were to claim god does not exist, which I do not, I would carry the burden. It takes no faith to be a skeptic. It's through a sheer lack of faith that I'm at this position as an atheist.

Considering abortion is killing(whether it's legally murder or not), anti-life sums it up well. If you're dumb enough to have sex, especially unprotected, abortion just seems like an immature, selfish way to get out of it. I personally couldn't care less what other teenagers choose, it's not my call to make. But I'm not getting into that before marriage. If you're dumb enough to sit out in the sun without sunscreen and don't put sunblock on, and get skin cancer. Don't get it removed you should live with your mistake. You're a moron. There is a huge difference between skin cancer and a HUMAN LIFE. Abortion is killing babies no matter how way you look at it. I don't see how you can justify it. You're using very emotive terms to define what abortion is. I could do the very same thing - abortion is a life planning and life affirming strategy by disposing of an undeveloped cellular product. You can spin any old view with the semantics you choose to use. Going off of that, would you class an act such as using the morning after pill or stem cell research to be 'baby killing'? If so, feel free to explain how a conglomeration of cells generally no more in number than 1000 (a conservative estimate) and with no definable features to be a baby. It has the potential to be a baby. Abortion is the killing of something that is not an actual baby but eventually will become a baby. The potential argument... The billions of sperm and thousands of eggs wasted in a males/females life have the potential to become human life. Every of the 50 trillion cells of your body has the potential to make one you. Pick two cells, somehow perform meiosis on both, go through sexual recombination, etc, and you could potentially form an entirely different human being. Bits and pieces of random organisms genomes have the potential, via DNA enzymes and a little more manipulation, to become a human life. Food has the potential to become a human life (you are literally what you eat). Properly select the right proportions of 85-ish kilograms of food and you've got the material potential for one adult male. ------------------------------------------------- How about these for abstract ideas - don't perform abortions and you could potentially be allowing axe murderers or rapists to live. Don't allow a mother an abortion and she could have potentially been a cancer cure or multi-million dollar charity giver. ------------------------------------------------- Perhaps, if you'd like, give me an argument against abortion without adding potential.

* Cows burping emits CH4 (methane) Just a little fact of the day.

Considering abortion is killing(whether it's legally murder or not), anti-life sums it up well. If you're dumb enough to have sex, especially unprotected, abortion just seems like an immature, selfish way to get out of it. I personally couldn't care less what other teenagers choose, it's not my call to make. But I'm not getting into that before marriage. If you're dumb enough to sit out in the sun without sunscreen and don't put sunblock on, and get skin cancer. Don't get it removed you should live with your mistake. You're a moron. There is a huge difference between skin cancer and a HUMAN LIFE. Abortion is killing babies no matter how way you look at it. I don't see how you can justify it. You're using very emotive terms to define what abortion is. I could do the very same thing - abortion is a life planning and life affirming strategy by disposing of an undeveloped cellular product. You can spin any old view with the semantics you choose to use. Going off of that, would you class an act such as using the morning after pill or stem cell research to be 'baby killing'? If so, feel free to explain how a conglomeration of cells generally no more in number than 1000 (a conservative estimate) and with no definable features to be a baby.