warri0r45

owned I have to +1. +1 She's worth less than the effort it took to write this post.

Some people think they are different. They aren't. The one and only difference is the outcome. The mechanisms used to achieve both are exactly the same i.e. mutations and natural selection, to boil it down to it's roots.

Wow dude, great story there Trapical. Hey, don't worry about the personal tangent, I rather liked it. Infact, I can add one of my own. I'm a guitarist and a songwriter yet music is much more than just a bunch of sounds to me; it allows me to vent feelings into pure energy - sound energy. It's this energy which is a translation of how I feel which somewhat gives me a slightly better understanding of those feelings. I'd agree that some of the things I pour out are completely indescribable and undefinable, which makes it all the more unique an experience. Documented on a music tab program are feelings I can only describe as an intense hatered for everything and anyone that breathes and a bloodlust parallel to hitlers through a dispair and empty hopelessness right down to a deep reflecting semblance of peace and quiet. Even then I wouldn't have done these feelings justice. Your post hit a chord with me, if you'll pardon the pun.

To be totally honest I didn't understand your first paragraph all that well. Perhaps it's because I'm on holidays now and my brain has stopped working properly. But by all means, ressurect my other topic if you want.

The second paragraph looks pretty good to me and yes, the sickle cell anemia/malaria example in Africa is a good example of a mircoevolutionary change due to natural selection and a key example of a mutation of harmful nature in one instance (sickle cell anemia is a debilitating disease where your red blood cells can't carry oxygen as efficiently) that is actually beneficial in another instance (the malarial protozoan can not infect sickle cells). What's your take on macroevolution, on the other hand?

As a respone to a select few of you coming on here and talking about sacrafices and things like that I'd like to perform a little excercise. Note this will be a cherry pick as I will only pick out the good stuff that satanism teaches directly from thier official website. I invite anyone who thinks satanism is a hate filled blood cult to rival my cherry picking excercise with one of thier own from the very same site. Here goes -

You practice satanism, the only thing you do differently to those who do it as a philosophy is that they don't apolgise for it. Nicely put and true, too. :wink:

So you're saying people who follow Satanism sometimes do it because they have problems or to be cool. Great. Thanks for not perpetuating stereotypes.

DNA stuff ups and oxidants. We're a bunch of self sustaining chemical reactions that can't sustain itself, so we eventually burn out and die. How to stop it? Fashion some sort of machine that makes molecules act unnaturally... I don't think there's any possible way.

Of course, mate. I'm thinking that latter proposed case of euthenasia would be illegal.

Satan means adversary in Hebrew. Also, if you think about it, it's almost designed to get an expected response from, say, a christian. It makes a point in that sense but, of course, some have stronger faith than others. And no, it's not really a religion. I'd call it a philosophy.

Metalcore / "Mathcore" Something like that.

Sounds fair enough to me, these people seem to misintrepreting the message and as it were "missing the point". The same can be said about Christian/Mulism fundamentalists who "miss the point" of the Koran/Bible and create a bad name for the moderate majority. Can I ask a question on this "indulgence"? What defines "indulgence"? There seems to be no line or "thou shalt not" element to this philosophy which personally I believe to be important in society, say someone derives pleasure from shooting foxes; if this philosophy was at societies helm there would be chaos. Does anyone remember the "do what you feel like day" in the Simpsons? A scary parallel... P.S. as before exam revision and time contraints have rushed this post, any gaping flaws are accidents and will be edited when my exams are over, apologies if there are many screw ups :D Valid point. On a general sense Satanists will indulge in all the so called sins yet you can hear the black pope himself (dude in the video) comment on the value of the law in society and the rediculousness of killing babies or anything sick like that (either in the vid I showed or another I've seen somewhere - can't remember). I've seen a vid where the black pope is on a radio show and the host continually tries to basically accost him and say that he's a Crowley worshipper and he's into all of this sick twisted stuff, which is quickly dispelled as nonsense. The main focus of this indulgence that they would take part in would be merely in lifestyle choice - nothing lawbreaking, I can assure you (although, as you correctly point out, there are always those who miss the point and just take things way too far). Overall, Satanists are free thinkers which means, as I've said before, they for the most part won't take things to the extreme just because they can literally interpret a doctrine as an excuse.

You have to love Tool. Maynard is one of the best song writers ever in my opinion. Bloody oath. Tool are definately top 10 if not number one for inspirational honours for me. Incredible stuff. Whenever I play songs like The Patient or 46 & 2 on guitar I just get transported to another dimension. It rocks. The flow that they can get out of music is rediculous. Take The Patient, for example; It's in 5/4 time and it's smooth as bloody silk to play. =P~ Can't get enough. Always gotta have my daily injection of tool.

It seems better to trust the judgement of someone who's been rigorously trained in the use of a deadly weapon, than to trust someone who's judgment is chemically impaired? You make a good point. Drinkers aren't trained to drink. hence why I feel the argument I presented on the last page of a gradual introduction of alcohol to kids by parents holds some merit.

Me too. =P~ It's rediculously awesome.

go to thier myspace for a little preview. :wink:

Awesome dude, I'll be looking foreward to what issues are brought up. :ohnoes:

Rediculously unrelated, but nice choise in music (avvy).

I'd see it as a right of passage rather than a law breaking excercise. "Everyone else is doing it" is a poor excuse, I know, but I'd say it gives the drinker some good life lessons about friends, sex, drugs and, of course, alcohol. These lessons are a risky thing, admittedly, so this is just my pseudo-justification of underage drinking. :lol: The thing with alcohol is, depending on the culture (here in Australia, for example, we're all generally big drinkers) kids will always have a way of getting thier hands on it. This in itself is a rediculously difficult thing to police as older brother can go buy a carton and then behind close doors tell little brother to go nuts. I'd propose the best way to combat this pretty dangerous attitude is with underage driking. That's right, underage drinking. More specifically a steady introduction to alcohol by parents at say 14-15 which I'd argue gives them a better respect for the drug by the time they're 18 so they don't end up dead on the floor of a club with an ecstacy tablet in thier gut which is half full with vodka too. Just a thought.

That's awesome mate. Kudos to you and your girlfriends turn around and positive attitude.

The whole internet thing (and OT on this site, specifically) is a bit of an escape from the real world. Bit of fun and hopefully a place where I can learn a thing or two. Afterall I'd like to think I get something out of sitting infront of a panel beaming radiation into my head constantly. :lol:

On me neck mate. Probably died in a previous life from a stab wound there or something... :uhh: Nice idea. Kind of like a matrix meets groundhog day dealy.

As has been shown on another issue, evidence doesn't make something scientific or based in science. I can use someting in nature that correlates with just about any idea and spin it to seem like a good argument. The word evidence is deceptive if not used in correlation with a multitude of other observations, hypotheses and/or laws i.e. to support a theory. The better a theory is, the more cross referencing mechanisms, if you like, it has to add credentials. Evidence for something or another on it's own can be pretty useless at times.

Yeah, too true. I can't personally remember such an accident with so many deaths happening in my lifetime. R.I.P to the unlucky ones. Get better to the lucky ones.