warri0r45

Criminal? Wow thank God you're not a Supreme Court Judge. :roll: Its just another theory, what's the big deal? Though I believe personally it should be explained in Science Class clearly that their is other theories out there and that the Big Bang and evolution is in no way factual. {waits for Warri0r to come and convert me :P } Though following on from that it should be best dealt with and further looked into in a Religion class. Ok, Conversion time. :P (In case you can't tell by now, I'm not trying to convert anyone) Yes, evolution does have a factual basis although I'm not going to judge the big bang theory - my knowlege is lacking there. The idea that organisms evolve is a fact. Trust me (if you want an explanation, feel free to PM me). And it's a big deal because if a sound scientific theory such as evolution gets overturned by belief, it sets a truly disturbing precedent. Just the way I feel about it. Also, creationism isn't a scientific theory nor is it truly scientific. For reasons, see the quote below. On a side note, apologies for opening a thread on this topic just a little while ago, totally my own ignorance. Edit: The thread I recently made was locked. Again, sorry for that. :oops: Anyway I made a few points on why I think this is makes a mockery of true science - I know in the big scheme of things this museum won't make a dent in science whatsoever but I think some of you can tell the issue of creation museums and teaching creation in science classes is still something that concerns me. To stress once more, I don't care that people believe creation. It's them passing it off as scientifically sound that bothers me.

Awesome. I'm no shredder so it's the less technical stuff for me. :P

You've missed my point... do you actually know why they did it or what those signs represent? I think it's a fairly safe bet that they intended to cause ructions. There's no doubt in my mind and there needn't be. If they were rougue Hindus and wanted to spread messages of peace, I'm sure they would understand fully if someone accused them and explained why they were doing so.

Spot on. Hence why the title is kind of wrong; It's not a matter of facts. I know that. I was asking you whether you believed it was real or not. If you believe it is real. You would think of it as true. Or a fact. But remember, just because they only believe that it exists. Instead of knowing it exists. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Those who believe in destiny will not have any evidence on the subject. BUt that does not mean destiny is not real. Yes, if you believe it's real, you do think it's true. But if you believe it and you think it's a fact... It's just not a matter of facts is all I'm saying.

I don't want you to stop doing any of those things. I want you to at least change your woeful attitude and try thinking about the possible outcomes. And your whole tyraid about man before nature is futile - man depends on nature to live, buddy, the atmosphere being of key importance if we want to live for more than a few minutes. If you think we can sustain polluting the atmosphere and dumping crap where ever we like, you don't know the first think about ecology or sustainability.

Plausible? I don't think so... :P

Haha, for some strange coincidental reason, when I read the post title and your name as the newest poster, my brain got 'SirHitler' :lol:

I think he kind of got the point, really. It's not that no one could possibly think lustful thoughts at one of these sorts of parties; it's just that the environment doesn't lend itself to it, and almost no one does. I think at first the reason for that is because you're so self-conscious that you're naked that you can't really think about other people's nakedness, and then you quickly get over that by really realizing that being naked isn't actually a big deal, at which point you have no reason to overinterpret other people's nudity, either. Like I said, I've attended these parties with men who I've been sexually intimate with and thus can attest can be lustful at appropriate times. However, in the context of the naked party, you really don't feel that lust. There is definitely an energy at that sort of event, but it's very much removed from a sexual energy (the highest of which I've experienced just at regular dance parties where people were grinding all over). I just think it's really hard to knock it until you try it. I think it's an experience worthy of having, and may actually help you analyze why some of our cultural norms are the way they are, and if we can fix them and make them better. If you don't want to, feel free; but don't judge the people who do according to your own inaccurate standards of human nature. To his defence, the idea that lust is a standard attribute of humans is, in the broader sense, correct. However, I do see the point you're making. The aformentioned standard is a generalisation that can be supressed as you have explained. In a party like the one you discribed, I can understand that thoughts of lust would vanish due to being more comfortable and open in your own skin, but on a biochemical level, my hunch is that those feelings would still be there but just highly supressed by other new, more profound feelings. Eh, didn't that sound uptight. :lol:

There was something similar here in Aus on ANZAC day. Some kids spraypainted something to the effect of 'all diggers are warmongers' on a memorial wall (a digger is slang for an Aussie/Kiwi soldier). Just anoter raft of people who need a firm slap up the side of the bleeping head. I could write an essay on why but it would give far too much undue attention for attention seeking losers.

That may well have something to do with it, but the discussion I'm trying to put foreward is that the position of shirking responsibility and passing the blame gives us the illusion that we can pollute forever and burn all the fossil fuels we want without repercussions. The major falult I see with that way of thinking is that we won't have a plan suffiecient to keep society as we know it from imploding due to an energy crisis. If we want to get serious about sustainability and keeping our race intact, we really do have to take a good look at ourselves and try and cast aside debate in favour of future planning.

If it's your planet as well, as you say, then you should take some responsibility by at least having a better attitude about it. You're coming across as the typical responsibility shirker. It's not a fact, I don't believe it, so I'll pollute all I want... In my opinion that's a seriously poor attitude to have. What's going to happen when we suddenly run out of fossil fuels, or is converting to non-renewables all someone elses problem too?

My 'journal' of sorts would be the music I write.

Spot on. Hence why the title is kind of wrong; It's not a matter of facts.

So due to the fact that there seem to be a few guitarists, bassists and or drummers here, what kind of music do you like to play? I myself play guitar and play mostly my own music and Tool songs. Matter of fact, I just learnt 'Hush' by Tool around 10 mins ago. I highly reccomend learning it! Great song to play. :P Anyway, if you play an instrument, what kind of music do you guys play? If you like, give some reccomendations too. :

Just like eating benefits the species, but people don't spend hours online looking at pictures/videos of food, or spend their days checkin' out "the burgers"... The point is, people don't do those things because those things aren't sating their appetites. So what's the point? To make a connection, why do people spend their days lusting after people if it doesn't fulfill their sexual appetites? We are over-exciting our sexual appetites for no apparent reason. Lust may "benefit" our species in a reproductive sense, but I don't see how treating people like sexual objects benefits us in any other sense. I think at this point our species isn't in any danger of becoming extinct so what practical benefit does lust bring anymore? None that I can think of. You're right. It may benefit us sexually but in little to no other situation. You're also correct in saying we don't need it any more. The distinction I was making is that lust in itself isn't an inherently bad thing or something to be seen as taboo. It came about to serve a purpose and is part of who we are as human beings. In terms of eating, some people have food addictions although I'm personally skeptical of whether they just don't have the will power to overcome it. These addictions, kind of like sex addictions, can be explained by thier benefit in our survival, albeit our prehistioric/primative survival. The thing about modern times is that there's so much food and sex around that people overload and it becomes a detriment to thier normal everyday functions. Eh, bit of a tangent but it brings up some discussion points.

Where does death come into nudity? And it's not as 'obviously wrong' as you say. Why? Because the people who go to nudist colonies/beaches/parties don't think so. On sidenote, do you know why we lust? Because, to put it bluntly, rooting benefits the species and therefore so do feelings of lust. Such a travesty when people lust for others bodies, ey?

That proves nothing. The earth's climate exists in a fairly delicate "steady state." Generally that the amount of anything going in is equal to that coming out. For example all of the animals on earth respiring may be balanced by the photosynthesis in plants. The fact is humans may have pushed this out of balance, hence the warming. Bear in mind that those 3 volcanoes have produced a shed load of Carbon Dioxide, but we have produced a shed load more on top. Like others have said, CO2 isn't the most lethal greenhouse gas anyway I think global warming is our fault and my opinion is that we should moderate our lifestyles whether we believe it is our fault or not. We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 100 years and we will drive animals and plants to extinction at this rate. Surely turning off a light, walking to school, switching to low energy bulbs, double glazing your windows is all worth it even if it's not our fault the world's getting warmer. The same remedy to two problems. No, don't make assumptions before it actually happens, typical liberal. Scientists say "Omg were gona die in 80 years humans r so baaaad" but what do you think could happen in 80 years. Think about it/ Fossil Fuel burning rates are going down, and we're starting to use more effishient (sp whatever) energy devices, such as hydro, solar, etc. I also had the idea of sound wave energy, that probably could work. Convert sound waves to energy mebbe? There's always sound waves and there will never be no soundwave. darkforaster, You say when humans breathe we release water vapour. That is natural. What do you want us to do, stop breathing? Well, Mr. I know it all, feel free to stop breathing anytime. 1) Scientists don't use emotion to win you over. They don't give a damn how you feel. 2) Thier predictons are rather dire, so wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? Think of the two options - Either we heed the warning, clean up our act and avert a disaster of cataclysmic proportions or keep choking the planet by cutting down masses of trees and pumping masses of greenhouse gasses in the air resulting in our extinction. That's a no brainer for me, personally. 3) The one smart thing from your post is the idea to try and ween ourselves off of fossil fuels as going gung-[garden tool] right to the last drop would more or less lead to the demise of the western world and indeed the whole world as we know it.

Optimist. I've tried pessimism, not cool. Ignorance is bliss, as they say although I always look at things in a realistic sense before I put on the rose coloured glasses. Call it a defense mechanism for coping in such a screwed up world, if you like.

I agree with that, but I was referring to the fact that many times in the past scientific 'theories' have been worded as 'breakthroughs', and I think usually the difference in social attitudes to the two is whether or not they'll gain from it at the end of the day. You were correct on your explanation of the Bohr Model, an orbital is indeed an area where there is a high probability of locating a specific electron. However, this still hasn't been factually proven, although to all intent and purposes it has, and people have taken that theory and made our lives better from it. Do you see my point? I'm trying to articulate that there are many things in scientific history which have never been 100% proven, but people have still acted upon those theories in order to better their own quiality of life. Global Warming may only be a theory, but I don't personally see it as much different to this. You're right, it has been all but proven. The main point is that people are only willing to accept things that might not be true as true if it holds the potential to further their own quality of life. Clearly, acting on Global Warming wouldn't, and so people like to refer to it as an unproven 'theory' rather than a fact. It's a change in social attitude, and we have to change these attitudes to Global Warming and about the neccesity to give up certain things in our life in order to preserve our climate. Ahh, I see. 'Theory' is a term of conveniance. When it suits me we'll use it but when it goes against the way I think or what I like, it's 'just a theory.' Valid observation although it still does annoy me. :x The people who toss out a theory as 'just a theory' to suit themselves seem to forget how much science has done for them.

But bacteria congregates there, and you said bacterial contamination. Shopping cart handles have more bacteria than public toilets Sitting naked on a bench would pose no more bacterial threat than using a shopping cart, computer mouse, door handle, shaking hands, etc. Places frequented by naked bottoms harbour less bacteria than places frequented by naked hands. Eh, stole my post. :P

While I agree with that conclusion I'm wondering if you really know how much weight a theory in the context of science holds. A scientific theory and the public use of the word theory are completely different. A theory in the context of science is a unifying explanation encompassing masses of observations, hypotheses on those observations and experimentation to test the grounds of the hypotheses. In actuality, the Bohr model of the atom was refined hugely with the ongoing study of quantum physics. As I understand it, the Bohr model has electrons orbiting the nucleus in much the same way planets orbit the sun. Current theories say rather than orbiting, an electron will occupy a certain area or orbital for a statistically determined fraction of the time. I'm by no means a quantum physicist so apologies if this is wrong. What I'm trying to get at is that saying our entire knowlege of many facets of the universe is based on a theory is misleading. Atomic theory and the current supposed structure of the atom has stood up to inumerable tests of validity. So much so that everything we do these days that encompasses the theory seems to work just fine thus gratifying it. Surprise surprise. In case you can't tell already, I see the common use of the word 'theory' as a stain on otherwise rock solid science.

No such thing as winter here really :( Our dams are at 29.3% i am not sure if thats the worst in Aus but its getting lower and lower by the day... When it rains here it is always the top story on the news that night :? it's that rare Around 18% here in Brisbane.

I'm with you. Why shouldn't we trust scientists? They're the only ones who will ever get us out of this mess. For anyone who thinks that they are the ones who got us into it in the first place, I'll burst that bubble before you even type the idea. The people who cause the problems are those who can't see past thier own wallets for any possible consequence to thier actions i.e. CEO's of multinational corporations etc etc.

Interesting, a bump. In response to 'microevolution can't be measured' it actually can, in a way. Using population genetics we can measure allele frequencies in populations and how much they change over time. It's pretty simple but pretty involved field work, I'd imagine. There's also this marker to determine whether a population is evolving called Hardy-Wienburg Equilibrium. The conditions for a population to be in such a state are as follows: - Extremely large population size - No gene flow - No mutations - Random mating - No natural selection Now seeing as none, if any of these criteria are ever met by a population, they almost certainly always evolve to some degree. Edit: In response to the Barihawk quote that Led Zeppelin made, it dosen't actually take millions of years to test evolution and get tangible results. I've given an example of emerging speciation which was tested over many generations of fruit fly which I'd imagine didn't take millions of years. Testing microevolution and emergant speciation has been successful, as far as my knowlege on the issue is at the moment. Added to that, there are no known barriers which will prevent microevolutionary changes compounding into macroevolutionary changes. It's just nonsense to think that way if you have a background or knowlege of genetics. Expanding on that, there is no where near anything that I know of in DNA that will prevent any mutation from occuring - it's beyond the DNA's control. It dosen't think about mutations it undergos - it just rolls with the punches, so to speak.

Gold! Awesome that you could turn it back around on him. :lol: