warri0r45

Bill Hicks - Are even you surprised your fame has risen now because you're dead? I can't tell if that's supposed to be a dig or not. No, not at you personally mate. But it's pretty obvious, people have jumped on the Bill Hicks bandwagon big time. If you liked him before that, then that's no problem, and if you didn't I can't exactly prove it. See what I'm saying? Hope so, because I'm finding it hard now >.< You've probably got a point although not true for everyone. I'm basically the only person I know in real life that likes him and at the time of his death, I wasn't exactly into him due to being 6 or something >.<. His comedy is like philosophy to me; truly unique and cold hard truth that people found hard to swallow given how America was at the time (and still is, more or less).

Hey people, I thought we had a pretty decent dialogue going before in this thread but it seems to have stopped so I'll give it a little nudge. I'm willing to learn out of all of this as well as my knowlege on the theory is by no means an expertise. I've learnt a fair bit on evolution in my time on three different levels yet am still willing to see the flaws in it or the impossibilities of microevolution compounding into macroevolution.

I laughed so hard at his commentary on kids drawings.

IMO I don't think that we have the capacity to full wipe out our own species. Somehow we'll find a way to survive and restart. The bigest danger is very large-scale disasters, simular to what wiped out the dinosaurs. However I also think that technology has evolved to a point that we no longer are really subject to wiping out like that. Yeah, that's a good point. We are animals, after all, and will always find ways to survive and keep the population going. I'll be really interested in my lifetime to see if (a) global warming has catastrophic affects and (B) how we react to it. I'm sure we'll think of something, but we've never really had to face one of those 'too little, too late' scenarios in our history before (at least I think not).

I am the Antichrist :twisted: ... No, not really. I think, aside from the supernatural side of things, it could happen through our intense hate of each other. We've already half destroyed the world with wars and the rich-poor gap (thanks capitalism and no I'm not a communist in case you're wondering) when we have the resources, manpower and knowlege for a utopia where no one goes hungry or is denied medical care and a chance at peace.

- Goodbye Tonight by Sunk Loto. - There Will Be No Violins When You Die by I Killed the Prom Queen. - The Other Mexico by Lynchmada. - Disposition by Tool. - Quite a bit of my own music. Lots of others, really. Most of the music I listen to reflects me in some way, hence why the music I write and listen to is so sentimental to me. It's never just a fun tune or something catchy, I'd say (at the risk of getting overly scientific) listening to music at a happy time in one's life can give you memories of happiness whenever you listen to it again, like positively reinforcing a behaviour. Sorry about going off on a tangent there a bit. :?

In fact, should we chose to invade, the citizenry should be grateful as we have brought through civilization to them at last! Wow, that's so neo-colonialism it actually scares the [cabbage] out of me, while at the same time explaining why Iran might just not be too fond of "the west". I'd have to agree with you. The idea that we are the 'proper' human beings and they all live in wierd little backwards countries is pretty silly. If I were them and someone said that I'm not a proper human being or basically insult my country of birth and thier customs (however wierd they may appear to anyone), I'd naturally resent that person.

Never heard of them. #-o I'll have to give them a look. You know if they have a myspace?

Amen to that. I saw pics on the news. Huge amount of people rallying together against it. That Attaturk (sp?) bloke was spot on, in my opinion. Separation of church and state and freedom of religion should be for everyone.

Sorry, Bari, I just interpreted that part as to evolution, which asserts no necessity for a creator. To assassin: did I interpret that correctly? Anyway I'm not going to press it, I'll lay off the debate if you don't want to do it here. Edit: The part in bold in my previous post probably still applies, if you were aiming to debate creation and mircales with science, although you probably already know this. Well I wasn't specifically mentioning evolution, but I suppose that definitely has a part to play in it. But the topic isn't really on evolution, and since Bari isn't saying that evolution is wrong there's no reason to debate it. :XD: Fair enough. Sorry about that, I was kind of continuing in the same vein as my discussion with magekillr.

Dinosaurs would be among the beasts of the fields mentioned in Genesis. For all we know, God began his shift towards preparing Earth for Man millions of years ago, clearing out predators that would present a drastic challenge for Man to survive amongst. He would have known that Man would eat the fruit, and therefore be expelled from Eden and have to face predators. Oh please. Excellent argument. And I'd thought this topic was going to diminish into some anti-Fundamentalist topic. And I am serious on both counts. His questions are addressed to me, not you. That's the kind of redundant logic that allow Christians to attribute any single natural event to a simple "God did it" and then rational people can't disprove that. The fact is, the fossil record and the theory of evolution does not fit with the fundamentalist view of the Bible. But when you try and reconcile Genesis with it by saying "well, maybe God did this then God did that" then you're missing the point and trying to save an argument that's already on thin ice with the trump card of "God did it". That's without even attacking the obvious flaws. As I stated before, and for the last time: DO NOT CONFUSE LITERALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM!!!1 Keep in mind by these terms I am referring to Christianity alone. *Ahem*, now back on the subject. Fundamentalism is the belief that God is supreme and that all of the miracles in the Bible are true. By definition, we are the folks that believe "God did it." Fundamentalist scholars do not doubt the fossil record or the existance of Dinosaurs. As I stated in a nother thread, I can literally walk to a museum 5 minutes away and touch a Tricerotops. We believe in the Creation and that the Bible is true. However, we acknowledge that the Bible is often written in figurative language, and must be deciphered to know what is meant figuratively and what is literal. Literalism are the hardcore extremist righ-wing "Jesus Camp" nuts who believe in a Young Earth and that every last word of the Bible is true. Let's compare a Fundamentalist and Literalist view of a Biblical prophecy: In the Revalation of John, John's dream prophecizes a beast with 6 heads coming out of the depths of the Earth. The AntiChrist. Fundamentalists believe that the prophecy will come true. We believe that the Beast will be a man with very high charisma and will fulfill the prophecies of the End Times. Literalist believe that the prophecy will come true. They believe that a giant beast will come from the Earth and lead us. Literally. And tell me why exactly the fossil record does not fit in with the "Fundamentalist" view? What exactly is the Fundamentalist view? Chances are, you will probably give me a Literalist view, because that's what you have been trained to think us Fundamentalists as. I've already demonstrated my abilities to fight you in other threads Assassin. Please bring it on. I have just as vast a field of resources to use to prove my point as you do. PS: God did it. [/hide] I will concede that your interpretation of what a fundamentalist is is different to mine and the entire English school's syllabus' (and indeed, Wikipedia's), so a lot of my points are as you said, irrelevant. Clearly, there are variations on the actual definition of the word fundamentalist, yours might be applicable to you but not everyone else who can equally consider themselves fundamentalists. However, the fact remains that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible does not fit with the mountains of scientific evidence against miracles, creation or indeed the supposed necessity for a creator. Sorry, Bari, I just interpreted that part as to evolution, which asserts no necessity for a creator. To assassin: did I interpret that correctly? Anyway I'm not going to press it, I'll lay off the debate if you don't want to do it here. Edit: The part in bold in my previous post probably still applies, if you were aiming to debate creation and mircales with science, although you probably already know this.

Lol @ England. :P I'd say South Africa not getting to the final was a bit of a shocker for me. Meh, it all worked out in the end, as scripted by the cricketing gods. :P

They're all so paranoid. What's thier motivation or what the hell are they trying to achieve. Proud to be seperate from us infidels, ey? If you ask me they're holding up unity on this planet. My country allows them to immigrate here and assimilate with our way of life and still we get racial tensions. What more can we do? We open the door and say come in, be our mates and they still (in many cases) are afraid of assimilating. We need more ducation for them, in this country, at least.

You do realise the whole evolution vs. creation 'debate' is a facade, don't you? It's a non-contest because according to science, the supernatural isn't debatable. What we can know, see and test is and so far everything points to evolution. Nature suggests things like evolution happened and miracles can't (I'm not saying the supernatural is impossible, that's removed from the realm of science, which is what I'm getting at). It's typical of fundamentalists/literalists to always ask for more evidence, more proof, more convincing arguments when it's all evident in nature and there's plenty of evidence out there if you want to look for it. I'll research evidence for you if you genuinely want but I need to know if you'll take your head out of the fishbowl and look at this hypothetically. Sorry for assuming you're not open, I don't like to do it, but many fundamentalists/literalists are not. What would you think of this view: I'm curious as to the holes in my argument and I'll dig up some other evidences later if you really want.

Sounds cool, I'm downlaoding thier comfortably numb now. :thumbsup:

Your scale there is a bit misleading. Humans have roughly 30,000 genes. 98% of that is 29,400. 600 different. Comparative DNA is pretty damning evidence. Either it happened as science explains or god made us think it did (or is telling us that it did). #-o Added to that, there's comparative anatomy and embryology and the fossil record each of which suggest it happened. Again, either it did or god made it seem that way (or is telling us that it did). Added to that, microevolution is factual and there aren't exactly any barriers that I know of which would prevent macroevolution (if you know of any, click the link in my sig and tell us). Setting aside any supernatural occurance, nature almost certainly suggests evolution. It's not really that far fetched when you look at it hypothetically.

Radio messages travel at the speed of light? Just curious here, but how long would it take to send a radio message to this planet, assuming it gets there without being interrupted by some sort of hole. *Has no understanding of physics in the slightest* Radio travels just under the speed of light in a vaccuum. A ballpark figure to travel 22.2 light years would be maybe 25-30 years? Lower frequency electromagnetic radiation travels slower? Not sure about that, hence why I'm asking. :P

AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!!

Darwin isn't an expert on contemporary biology, he didn't even know what DNA was. Why do people keep bringing this up like if it's meant to refute anything. All it shows is that Darwin didn't have very good foresight. exactly...he WASN'T an expert on contemporary biology...that's kinda the point. he even stated in his quote He wasn't an expert in todays biology because it's to advanced for him. He wasn't an expert in his days biology because he was a revolutionary thinker who went against the widely accepted and unquestioned views of creation.

Sick. Just got back and I am half deaf. The pit was decent but pretty eratic and restless. Most importantly, Lamb of God were awesome!!! Favourites would have to be Vigil, 11th Hour, Now Youve Got Something to Die For, Redneck and Black Label but the whole show was awesome, of course. Oh and I went to the bands signing and got to meet them! How cool. I'll see if I can post a pic of the signatures later. And Kenny, tell you're mate they put on very good shows, this is the second time I've seen them live and both times were awesome. So, what shows are coming up for you guys or any shows you went to recently?

Of course other countries knew what went on. The Americans, the British, the Russians, the French, the Germans, the Turks, the Italians and most of the European countries... They all suffered in the first world war. Just to confirm, ANZAC Day is like the British Day of Remembrance, you remember all wars? Yep. It's most told story, however, is Gallipoli. Gallipoli was basically the beginning of our courage and mateship in wartime as a new nation (Australia became a seperate colony from ye old motherland in 1901 and the Gallipoli campaign was mostly in 1915).

They're a great band and straight lines is a decent song, but I much prefer thier old stuff. Tool - Eulogy.

Hey people, I'm going to see metal band Lamb of God here in Brisbane tonight!! What concerts or gigs have you been to recently or are going to soon? Oh and if I never post here again, I've most likely died in the wall of death during the song Black Label. \m/ :lol: ... :ohnoes:

Anything from the matrix trilogy, gladiator, lord of the rings or star wars. Not sure which specific one, they're all a bit different and pretty good.

Mars did actually support life, in its earliest stages though, they have brought back rocks with fossils of crustaceons in and there are clear signs of previous running water (valleys and erosion patterns only caused by water) also there are signs of two previous ice caps. Anyway if there are any other life sources, why havent they "officially" visited us? And d'ya think they play runescape? : For real? I'd be interested to hear the source of that info because I'm seriously doubting it at the moment. I mean seriously, as in I think you pulled that from you-know-where... But hey, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm willing to hear it.