warri0r45

But that's the thing, people need some kind of reason to really help out the planet. A reason that benefits them, they're family, and they're lifestyle. The severity of the eco-situation correlates precisely to everyone's willingness to give up any part of their lifestyle for the sake of the environment. If man-made Global Warming is 100% proven, that's when you're going to see the change in people's attitudes, and not a second before then. And everyone, let's be honest. The severity of the situation greatly effects how much everyone here helps the earth, no matter how eco-friendly someone is, no matter how much of a treehugger you think you are. If scientists proved that we're all going to die in the next ten years if we don't lower CO2 emissions, then we'd have people actually doing something- even the most eco-friendly people would be driven to do even more than they've been doing in the past. But until then, people are selfish, and everyone has their limits on how much of their lifestyle they're willing to give up for the sake of a big rock. Me, I'm the same. Sure, I'll recycle, but I'm not going to change my lifestyle if there's no definite proof [don't act like you know] that unless I change my ways and give up a few things it's going to hurt me. It's just how my ego works; sorry if I'm not a treehugger, but I like my lifestyle, and I see no reason to change it. Just my two cents. [-_- and no, my current lifestyle doesn't damage the environment all that much anyways. I recycle, I rarely drive (hate it), don't litter, etc.] I dont litter unless i through gum outta window. im not old enough to drive and my family recycles. global warming is still crap though. Why do you think it's crap? I'm not understanding the psychology of rejecting the notion that the earth is warming and we're to blame. What's the deal? Ego? Don't want to chage your lifestyle? Or do you genuinely want to get the science right?What is it? There's a reason besides global warming to clean up our act. It's simple. We're going to run out of non-renewables one day. Better to inject money into clean energy sources so we're not caught short. So what's the reason to not clean up our act, assuming global warming is false? It's detrimental to us as a species either way. Either stubbornly do nothing and we turn into a sauna or stubbornly do nothing and run out of non-renewables because we didn't think to do everything we could to ensure sustainability. It's almost a non-issue if you look at it this way. It's a sustainability issue either way. Anyone agree? All this besides the vested interests of oil companies to keep profits rolling in, oil being the biggest industry in the world, from memory.

That we cannot. But what the video is asking the viewer is to turn vegan because some companies are a little crude in doing what they are supposed to do. What do you want done? Give the chickens and pigs their last rites and have their remains a proper funeral? What do you consider "ethical"? I'm sure I can show you examples that follow your standards, but there is no requirement for all companies to follow the same approach. Mass killing is always a grisly business, and it can't be avoided. No matter how many "save the cows" videos are made, people need food, and as a result a few hands will get bloodied. My god, what I'm asking is stuningly simple. To not make animals suffer pointlessly. A quick and painless death, and civilized living conditions is what I'm asking for. Am I reaching for the stars? I don't think so. I don't think anyone here would rather painful deaths and sickening living conditions over a painles death and good living conditions for all animals. The point I'll make to you is I'm not going to be guilt-tripped into not eating meat or feeling I'm part of the problem just so the activists can have another drone to puppet around. I'm not disagreeing with your view of animal rights, although this video does seem to be at the extreme end of the scale, i.e. misleading propoganda.

To the topic starter - Perhaps you could enlighten us with a more concise or down to earth version of what it is you're saying?

Looks tasty. =P~ I tend not to worry about how food looks. It's all about the taste.

KimDracula - Deftones. Man they have some [developmentally delayed]ed song names.

Yes. Translocations occur when a segment from one chromosome is detached and reattached to a different chromosome and snow goes yellow when you pee in it. Your dose of spam for the day. Tell me how that isn't relevant in a thread like this.

Me = loser and not going. :P Lol, not really, it's just never appealed to me. Haven't been in years and would rather not get the flu this year. :P

I have to get up for an 8:00am lecture tomorrow morning. Third week (or fourth?), second semester, first year, undergraduate (3 year) bachelor of science degree. It's... ok so far. Kind of ordinary. Maybe I'm just hard to please. Or hard to get motivated.

Incredibly powerful voice. One of my favourite vocal performances ever has to be 'So Real' by Jeff. It's got this desperation thats beautifully hanting, as you discribe. I could say something awfully gay right now, but I just appreciate what he did for music so much. Now into So Real - Jeff Buckley.

Grace by Jeff Buckley

That's impossible and poor logic. Let's say I have a friend called Bob who is not detectable by any of our natural senses. Let's say, for instance, that I believe Bob really exists and he is the creator of absolutely everything and he created absolutely everything in his supernatural universe factory. Prove to me that Bob dosen't exist and on top of that, that he didn't create absolutely everything in his supernatural universe factory. Firstly, the onus of proof is on me to prove to you that Bob is as I claim he is, as I am the one making the claim. It's like me being a prosecutor in a trial up against an alleged murderer and coming up with the line "prove to me he didn't murder so and so." I'd get fired because it's my job to support the allegation, or claim, with evidence. If someone asks me to make a case for biological evolution, I do my best to do so instead of just fruitlessly asking "prove to me it didn't happen." Not only is the onus of proof on me because I'm making the claim, but what I asked you to prove is impossible. No one knows whether my friend Bob, your god, or anything of that nature, exists or not because we are naturally limited in what we can percieve with our senses. So you've essentially required of me a logically backwards impossibility. I would ask you for a logically "forwards" impossibility, but that is, at this stage, impossible. So I tend to just forget about it and not ask people to prove thier undetectable gods to me. Unless, of course, you're aware of some facet of reality that I'm not and that I can percieve myself without the need of faith. So next time you demand someone disprove your unproven notion, remember Bob, your creator. If you don't believe he is your creator, prove to me that he didn't create everything or that he dosen't exist because at the present time he's telling me he's dissapointed that people are worshipping the wrong supernatural being. You don't think a supernatural being can talk to me? Prove he can't. You're probably catching on by now at how meaningless this rhetoric is. Bob can too. Don't think he's smart enough to catch on? Prove he isn't. Repetition is the key to learning. Bob thinks so too. Don't think he thinks this? Prove he dosen't. If I do this enough times I'm sure I'll convince myself what I'm saying is true. Amazing how the mind works. So to snap out of that little bubble, just because someone can't disprove an idea dosen't automatically make it true or even give it any credibility. It is, as I said, meaningless rhetoric asking someone to prove a negative.

Perhaps the comparison was a bit off. But tell me: Why do you think it's rubbish? (1) Why should we help the sick and poor? And I'll also quote myself from another thread: It's like suddenly some christians decided to disregard what the Bible actually says and try to fit it in with the evolution theory. If you're going to react like: "oh but God used that..." every time a new theory comes along, you'll end up losing your credibility. (1) Why not? All humans seem to have an underlying behaviourally shown attitude of altruism. It's only recently we gained the knowlege to see that the sick and weak can't progress a gene pool like those that aren't sick and weak can. I choose to stick with the altruism and stay away from social darwinism rhetoric. It's the kind of thing Hitler manipulated in trying to get a 'perfect' master race of blue eyed, blonde haired people. I just think the idea of denying or neglecting life to further a gene pool is dangerously subjective, prone to manipulation, and retarded. Natural selection works whatever the circumstances. You don't need to regulate it. True, but I was referring more to artificial selection. In my opinion, any artificial selection done on human populations for cosmetic purposes is subjective and prone to manipulation and discrimination, hence the Hitler example.

I would say that it's the other way around. The one thing that seems certain is that we're all selfish and egoistical. And there are those who believe that there is no such thing as altruism, since helping others is really just a way of making yourself feel better. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor by eliminating the Jews, perhaps he was just really devoted to help others? You could have a point. Though I don't think selfishness and altruism are mutually exclusive. It's hard to explain society and our ability to (for the most part) coexist without an altruistic quality. Although, you could then argue that all this is is a round about way of setting things up as best we can to minimise labor, disease, starvation, thirst, lonliness etc, for the self i.e. for selfish purposes.

Perhaps the comparison was a bit off. But tell me: Why do you think it's rubbish? (1) Why should we help the sick and poor? And I'll also quote myself from another thread: It's like suddenly some christians decided to disregard what the Bible actually says and try to fit it in with the evolution theory. If you're going to react like: "oh but God used that..." every time a new theory comes along, you'll end up losing your credibility. (1) Why not? All humans seem to have an underlying behaviourally shown attitude of altruism. It's only recently we gained the knowlege to see that the sick and weak can't progress a gene pool like those that aren't sick and weak can. I choose to stick with the altruism and stay away from social darwinism rhetoric. It's the kind of thing Hitler manipulated in trying to get a 'perfect' master race of blue eyed, blonde haired people. I just think the idea of denying or neglecting life to further a gene pool is dangerously subjective, prone to manipulation, and retarded.

If I'm interpreting it correctly, How2PK makes a good point. I'm capable of more than just one personality or feeling. I could be anything from pop/rock to blues or jazz to alternative to metal to melodic groove deathcore. Just about anything. Except rap. :P

If you're looking for scientific proof, then good luck. Science doesn't cover spiritual stuff because it's not observable with the 5 senses. But: (Genesis 2) "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." They get a choice here, see? In the beginning, that was the only choice to disobey, but it was there, and they got to choose, ya know? (1) Gladly. You are referring to irreducable complexity here. Have a view of (2) Yes, this is microevolution. I was demonstrating why it is an undeniable fact, as you may be aware of already. Microevolution, with sufficient time, leads to macroevolution. The two are just arbitrary labels and are one and the same thing merely seperated by timescale. If you'd like to disprove macroevolution, feel free to search for the mechanism in DNA which recognises which mutations go outside of the 'kind' and prevents them. A demonstrable mechanism such as this would effectively make common descent a falsified theory.

If we are created in his likeness does that mean that God was once a monkey? Anyway the whole idea of evolution is natural selection aka survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is probably the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that we should help the sick and the poor. If survival of the fittest truly was the work of God, why does he want us to help those who obviously aren't fit enough to survive? You're comparing evolution and what the bible teaches as if they are both moral constructs or ways to live your life. Evolution is a scientific theory which merely explains life on earth. Just be aware that if someone uses evolution as an excuse to act in a certain way, they've taken it way out of the context of science. This would be social darwinism, something which I personally think is a rubbish way to think or base your life's choices on. Survival of the fittest is a consequence of there being disparity in genetic make-up and resource avaliability between members of a population. Humans have risen above this, in many ways.

I hate you! Garrrrr!! Why can't I be smart? :( :P (well done :P )

Ok. I can't say I'm in agreement with you as making something look like it's not is to me a decieving action. I'm not sure I fully understand your argument; are you saying it's not decieving to make something seem like it's not, for example to make rocks look old through thier chemistry while in fact they are not nearly as old as we would be led to believe? Sorry if I'm getting you wrong here. Either way perhaps you could put my mind at rest. What purpose would there be to make rocks seem billions of years old when they are in fact not? Edit: Ok, so god never told us he created rocks brand new, yet, he created us with the brains to interpret these rocks in the light that they fit into a chronology of "birth" ---> present state, just like anything else. What reason do we have to believe that rocks were just created pre-aged? We have reason to, and we know, that rocks dont come pre-packaged, rather they can be formed via sedimentation, cooling lava flows, etc. I'm finding it hard to grasp that god would want to make the earth look a certain way when it's not. Too be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have a clue, and am just as confused with the argument as you. I'm not actually saying I support the argument itself, but its a valid hypothetical thats for sure. I won't ever know during my human life the answers to these things, but as you said in your pm we'll find out one day - that's for sure! For the record, I brought it all up after the comment from Tigra stating that it would be deceiving for God to make rocks a certain age when we would interpret them to be that age. Which I disagreed with, its not a deceitful action. This highlights why I'd personally not take the creation story in the bible as literal fact and rather as metaphorical. The idea that god would create everything as is under 10,000 years ago and then lead us to believe through empirical evidence that everything is in reality much, much older is, to be generous, an uncomfortable thought. If I were a theist, I'd personally go with the model of god being a spark for the big bang. But, due to what some might call my closed mindedness (and I'd somewhat agree), my thoughts remain in what I can know rather than what I'd like to be the case. What I'm getting at here is that, as discussed in PM, there are many things that we can only possibly know when we die be they through affirmation or lack thereof. I personally choose to go with the empirical evidence which debunks a literal accound of genesis and I subsequently have a strong degree of knowlege here in my mortal form that the god of a literally interpreted bible does not likely exist. Can the god of the bible exist? Can a god exist? Sure, I can't see why not. It's just the literal interpretation leaves us at odds with knowns and leads me to the only reasonable conclusion of rejecting the notion that the bible is an inerrant text book. So there you go, a little of my viewpoint. :wink: Oh no, I might not know why God decided to do something one way and not the other, but I definitely don't have any agreement with the Big Bang theory or evolution for that matter, no matter how much evidence is brought forward (which won't happen in my beliefs anyway). Believing in the Big Bang or in Evolution in my personal view destroys the whole meaning of our faith in Jesus Christ. It specifically states that God created man in his likeness, and didn't create some monkey which turned into a human, it just goes against that whole argument, we being monkeys thousands of years ago. And also Jesus didn't come to Earth to die on the cross for the monkeys, he did it for us human beings, so I could never believe in evolution because of that. And even if you could make a comprimise, where would a Christian draw the line as to when Jesus came and died on the cross for which first "human." When did a human stop becoming a monkey and turn into what we are today, and start to sin? I could never believe in that, even if I don't have all the answers, that's where faith comes in. BTW Sorry for the rushed post, I've gotta go somewhere quickly, I'll edit it later if it doesn't make enough sense. :wink: I see. Well, I'm not going to argue you should or shouldn't believe something; my view is people should be free to believe whatever they wish. My general purpose when debating matters such as evolution is merely to put across my side of the story, which happens to be the mainstream scientific position too. What people do with the information I put forward is of course up to them. In the broadest sense most of the arguing you'll get from me comes from rebuttal of people misrepresenting or misinterpreting the science they are attacking. This is why I admire you in many ways. You don't feel the need to constantly hound at the science behind evolution by arguing through ignorance with popular (and I have to say outdated and misinformed, in many cases) arguments as if to allude to an underlying insecurity as some others may. You seem to have something that many biblical literalists seem to lack - faith. Simple, isn't it? Supposeldy the most faithful, those that take the message most literally, tend to be the most insecure, vocal and quick to try and find flaws in established science. They seem to forget about faith in favour of trying to be armchair scientists to in a way give thier own views credentials and possibly in another to convert minds. Be faithful, believe and you'll get no worries from me. But then try and make it seem like science is against a theory like evolution by twisting and contorting the facts? That's when we'll get trouble. So someone such as yourself, who has faith and avoids the vast majority of soap-box 'science evangelism' (kent hovind reference), will get basically no worries from me. :P

Dimebag Darrell. His mastery of a fret board both with powerful riffs and an incredible ability to solo mashed in with his ability to write music still makes me question whether he was a human being. I have my suspicions... :anxious:

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Souce I have to frikkin' repost. Lmao!!! I think you better email the writer to update his page buddy! Last Update: January 22, 1993 The difference in knowledge we knew 14 years ago is very different from the knowledge we know today! And just as a observation.. thats a very crappy and poor designed website. Anyone could have just wrote that and fly it off as "offical". I never heard anything of Evolution being as FACT. Show me some pages that claim evolution as fact and dated in 2007. Most of the material the reference is in the 1980's! Almost 30 years ago! I don't believe Evolution exists. I believe the cells are so highly designed by God that they can adapt themselfs to almost any given situation. The once known "simple cell" is now know to not be.. simply at all. Its complexity is beyond our imagination. Better go find some updated material mate. Your still living in the 20th century. ~Defender~ Defender, ask a biologist. Seriously, either continue denying it by making excuses or actually ask a biologist about it. Evolution is an inherent part of life as roundness is an inherent part of a circle. To say it dosen't exists demonstrates your ignorance as even the most hardened creationists concede that evolution happens, but then proceed to make up excuses and false assumptions that it stops within a kind when there is no demonstrable mechanism to prove this. You saying the complexity of a cell being beyond our imagination is odd as well, considering I, an amatureish first year university science student, can define and tell you the functions of all parts of a cell. It's a definable mechanismic (is that a word? If it's not it should be :lol: ) machine. Lmao! Thanks for evading my questions and providing updated proof, which shouldn't be too hard since your in college right now. Fail. Instead you just told me to suck it up and bow down to your intelligence just because you said so. PLEASE provide logical "updated" evidence that Evolution is a Fact. Otherwise its just your word vs mine. Thank you. ~Defender~ Defender, I invited you to ask a scientist i.e. someone who will gladly enlighten you on the subject. It's a way of saying don't take what I say authoritively and be skeptical of what I say. Please, tell me where on earth I told you to bow to my intelligence and 'suck it up'? If I did so and you can show me where, I will apologise profusely. But because I love you, I'll give you a logical run down of why evolution is factual and an inherent part of life. Fact #1: Every living organism has genetic info in the form of DNA Fact#2: Every living organism is different to others, even of the same species, due to genetic differences Fact#3: Every once in a while, DNA replication, required for reproduction of the organism in question, malfunctions and there is a mutation in the genes of said organism. This can also be induced by chemicals or by varying other means. In simplest terms, mutations happen. They are mostly bad. Fact#4: Not all organisms are best suited to thier environment relative to others in the same population Given these four knowns, those organisms that carry mutations and genetic difference which suits them better to thier environment are able to reproduce at a higher frequencey and thus see to it that thier progeny proliferate in number relative to other less adapted progeny in the future gene pool of a population. As a result, particular variants of genes, called alleles, will change in frequency for any given population over time. Evolution is often defined as simply "a change in allele frequency over time." As seen for beneficial alleles (i.e. those which suit an organism to it's environment), thier frequency will increase. The frequency of harmful or sub-standard mutations, on the other hand, will decrease because those carrying them likely won't be as fit as others when it comes to reproduction. Example time - We're in a population of bacteria. - Bacterium A is normal - Bacterium B has a mutation which means it's resistant to a particular kind of antibiotic. - As bacterium A does not have the resistance mutation, it dies out and has a much lesser frequency of reproduction than bacterium B, which reproduces more because it is alive to do so. - As a result, the allele coding for bacterial antibiotic resistance increases in frequency over time, thus, evolution has occured. This example and what I explained above is evolution through the mechanism of natural selection. So essentially, nature will always require of every organism a better set of genes. Mutations provide the material for change and natural selection chooses those mutations which allow for higher reproductive frequency. If I didn't explain anything well enough, feel free to ask for clarification. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aside from that, I reccomend this for a few statements of what are considered fact. This article as of June last year and endorsed by 68 acadamy of science type bodies from a breadth of countries.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Souce I have to frikkin' repost. Lmao!!! I think you better email the writer to update his page buddy! Last Update: January 22, 1993 The difference in knowledge we knew 14 years ago is very different from the knowledge we know today! And just as a observation.. thats a very crappy and poor designed website. Anyone could have just wrote that and fly it off as "offical". I never heard anything of Evolution being as FACT. Show me some pages that claim evolution as fact and dated in 2007. Most of the material the reference is in the 1980's! Almost 30 years ago! I don't believe Evolution exists. I believe the cells are so highly designed by God that they can adapt themselfs to almost any given situation. The once known "simple cell" is now know to not be.. simply at all. Its complexity is beyond our imagination. Better go find some updated material mate. Your still living in the 20th century. ~Defender~ Defender, ask a biologist. Seriously, either continue denying it by making excuses or actually ask a biologist about it. Evolution is an inherent part of life as roundness is an inherent part of a circle. To say it dosen't exists demonstrates your ignorance as even the most hardened creationists concede that evolution happens, but then proceed to make up excuses and false assumptions that it stops within a kind when there is no demonstrable mechanism to prove this. You saying the complexity of a cell being beyond our imagination is odd as well, considering I, an amatureish first year university science student, can define and tell you the functions of all parts of a cell. It's a definable mechanismic (is that a word? If it's not it should be :lol: ) machine.

Wow. I'm disturbed on so many levels right now. I could only be more so if I saw a picture of the spiders crawling all over him. :uhh: Cleaning that mess up is not a job I'd ever do, that's for damn sure.

Ok. I can't say I'm in agreement with you as making something look like it's not is to me a decieving action. I'm not sure I fully understand your argument; are you saying it's not decieving to make something seem like it's not, for example to make rocks look old through thier chemistry while in fact they are not nearly as old as we would be led to believe? Sorry if I'm getting you wrong here. Either way perhaps you could put my mind at rest. What purpose would there be to make rocks seem billions of years old when they are in fact not? Edit: Ok, so god never told us he created rocks brand new, yet, he created us with the brains to interpret these rocks in the light that they fit into a chronology of "birth" ---> present state, just like anything else. What reason do we have to believe that rocks were just created pre-aged? We have reason to, and we know, that rocks dont come pre-packaged, rather they can be formed via sedimentation, cooling lava flows, etc. I'm finding it hard to grasp that god would want to make the earth look a certain way when it's not. Too be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have a clue, and am just as confused with the argument as you. I'm not actually saying I support the argument itself, but its a valid hypothetical thats for sure. I won't ever know during my human life the answers to these things, but as you said in your pm we'll find out one day - that's for sure! For the record, I brought it all up after the comment from Tigra stating that it would be deceiving for God to make rocks a certain age when we would interpret them to be that age. Which I disagreed with, its not a deceitful action. This highlights why I'd personally not take the creation story in the bible as literal fact and rather as metaphorical. The idea that god would create everything as is under 10,000 years ago and then lead us to believe through empirical evidence that everything is in reality much, much older is, to be generous, an uncomfortable thought. If I were a theist, I'd personally go with the model of god being a spark for the big bang. But, due to what some might call my closed mindedness (and I'd somewhat agree), my thoughts remain in what I can know rather than what I'd like to be the case. What I'm getting at here is that, as discussed in PM, there are many things that we can only possibly know when we die be they through affirmation or lack thereof. I personally choose to go with the empirical evidence which debunks a literal accound of genesis and I subsequently have a strong degree of knowlege here in my mortal form that the god of a literally interpreted bible does not likely exist. Can the god of the bible exist? Can a god exist? Sure, I can't see why not. It's just the literal interpretation leaves us at odds with knowns and leads me to the only reasonable conclusion of rejecting the notion that the bible is an inerrant text book. So there you go, a little of my viewpoint. :wink:

Ok. I can't say I'm in agreement with you as making something look like it's not is to me a decieving action. I'm not sure I fully understand your argument; are you saying it's not decieving to make something seem like it's not, for example to make rocks look old through thier chemistry while in fact they are not nearly as old as we would be led to believe? Sorry if I'm getting you wrong here. Either way perhaps you could put my mind at rest. What purpose would there be to make rocks seem billions of years old when they are in fact not? Edit: Ok, so god never told us he created rocks brand new, yet, he created us with the brains to interpret these rocks in the light that they fit into a chronology of "birth" ---> present state, just like anything else. What reason do we have to believe that rocks were just created pre-aged? We have reason to, and we know, that rocks dont come pre-packaged, rather they can be formed via sedimentation, cooling lava flows, etc. I'm finding it hard to grasp that god would want to make the earth look a certain way when it's not.