warri0r45

That really does annoy me. What a mockery of a great song. I'll admit I never really got into supertramp, but comparing the two I'd definately side with the original. You want a slaughtered original? :-X :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Excuse me everyone while I hack up last nights dinner. -.-

WHERE'S MY BEER ??!!

So you could never entertain other life forms out there? I think there could be something, but there dosen't have to be something out there as some peoples arguments seem to be.

Some may turn criticisms into insults if the message isn't getting heeded. Should you blame those who are insulting because they are frustrated or the leader because he continues making mistakes? That's ultimately up to the individual.

This one takes the cake. Look at the instruction on the can. :lol:

BULL DITTO I have no idea when bending was 'invented' and don't pretend to know, but I'm pretty sure it was red hot during the Jazz age of the 1920's due to the nature of the genre.

Phlogiston and ether explained oxidisation and EM-wave propagation; since they explained their related phenomena successfully you would suggest that phlogiston and ether were real. So what makes these ideas any different then ones from today, they were well informed theories which were ultimately shown to be wrong. If you want to read more on the subject http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ provides a decent discussion on the issue with some of the more common objections to your viewpoint. Thanks for the source and I'll probably have a look later on. In response to your point, the theoris of today, indeed any theory of today, may be proven wrong by the simple fact that theories are designed to be falliable. Does that make them any less valid? Well, I'd argue they are presently the most valid exlinations we have, that's precisely why they haven't been disproven yet. Whether or not they will be proven wrong is irrelavent to thier value and purpose today.

Yeah, that's a pretty good point. Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore, although not very realistic, is generally true about the American gun culture and paints a slightly scary picture to say the least.

Every country has it's faults and what it does well, but when America does something wrong they make a huge fuss out of it. In your post you never once mention anything bad about America. You never mentioned how soilders beat up civilians in prisons, and erm we probably could manage without you, we did well in the first and second World War, Americans often say oh we saved their buts then, no you didn't, it is like saying you helped win a football game when you came on 5 minutes before the end. People don't like America because they have the ideas that everyone needs them and can not live without them. Afraid to burst your bubble but we have been a civilistation trading with other countries a hell of a lot longer than you guys and we did perfectly well then and could do the same now. Oh and about the statement that America gives the most to Africa your wrong again, you actually give the least out of the "big" countries of the world. I think you are severely underestimating America's contribution in WW2. They may not have started it, but they did finish it in the Pacific with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, regardless of wether you think it was wrong or right. If my memory serves me correctly, they also served a pretty key role in D-Day, the most important invasion in the whole war in tandom with the Soviets resistance of the Nazis on the eastern front.

It dosen't really matter if atomic theory is wrong, but the obvious fact that it helps explain a tremendous amount of things about physics, chemistry and biology would suggest that it is on par with nature i.e. it would suggest that atoms are real. With this information, you could accept the overwhelming suggestive evidence for atoms and subatomic partcles being real or you could just keep demanding more.

Good post. there's no doubt in my mind that the tagline 'world police' is a tad harsh as America has done some pretty decent things aid-wise. I'm sure no one here (or at least very few) would have the perception that America is all bad and no good. I suppose why we are seeing such an anti-American sentiment on this topis is because it craves us to ramble through the bad rather than the good. I'd much rather have America than not. Think about the capacity of the Muslim religion to take over the west without the U.S. :uhh:

:shock: I would be a bit worried if Australia's bowlers were anywhere near as, well lets say pedestrian, as the Netherlands.

I was pretty puzzled as well, concidering the whole evolutionary concept of adaptability depends on the environment of the organism.

Let me see if I can draw an analogy for the topic starter. Say you have a dog, Rover, and you know he loves to eat your cookies from the table. One day, you go out to the shops and when you return, you see Rover there, fat stomach and crumbs all around him and the cookie jar. Now you know Rover loves cookies because he's done this many times before but you have never managed to see him do it with your own eyes. Prove he didn't eat the cookies. Not even in a court of law, buddy. What you are doing is asking me to prove to you that atoms don't exist when there are just about as many smoking guns as in this scenario I posted. It's self evident and if you still actually want evidence because you think it's an amazingly brilliant world wide conspiracy for no gain whatsoever, then I'll grab some info together for you.

I was always of the opinion to criticise any and all wrong moves your leader makes so you can let them know they are doing something wrong. Imagine if the entre 300 million population of the U.S. (and I mean every last one) said 'great job George!' Do you think that would lead to more bad choices or less? Criticising them is neccesary. "Keep the bastards honest," I say. They are all politicians, afterall.

What you mean is that we rapidly change the environment. That has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps he means the changing of our environment will push evolution in a certain diection.

What do you mean "life"? people came to the conclusion that life on the moon was impossible decades ago.

You don't think I haven't tried that already? just wondering, where did you manage to get the lyrics you posted?

I remember seeing something interesting on an Aussie science program recently; solar panels made out of super-thin slivers of silicon (the prominant material in normal solar panels). Aparrantly, this set-up of small sliver like panels makes it 5 or so times more efficient and looks pretty shmick on windows. It'll probably take a few years to fly, though.

Really?! Ive seen hundreds of UFOs over the years I think everyone here needs a lesson as to what a UFO acually is. Haha, you're totally correct there. Technically, there are many UFO's in existance. Just a question for the topic starter - perhaps I missed something but what on earth is that huge flashy bang thing in the middle of the picture? 0_o. Edit: nevermind, I'm thinking it's the rain you described and a light illuminating it as it falls?

That person was probably me and I didn't mean to imply that what you see is an actual real life image of an atom, far from it actually. And you are right, the image in my text book is taken with a scanning tunnelling microscope. Sorry for the mistake there. Here's a bit of info for anyone interested. And a link to a pic (it's a bit too big to post directly): Scanning Tunnelling Microscope Schematic Diagram.

Uhh. Yeah. Let's not recognise fellow human beings as human beings. Lets make them another species entirely. While we're at it, why not just HUNT AND KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE [bleep]ERS AND RID THIER EVIL NON-REPRODUCING [wagon] FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Oh, dear, my tounge slipped. Seriously guys, we have to rid this planet of them, a purple monkey whom I model my beliefs on popped out of thin air onto my shoulder and whispered into my ear. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, now that I've gotten those frustrated thoughts out of my system, let me say why no, you are not right. Your logic, XplsvBam, is to not recognise gays as part of society because they don't fit in with the way you think. You think benefit in society comes purely from humans reproducing. And let me guess, are you against contraception as well? As I and others have said above, the qualification for being a contributor to society is not to produce offspring, that will never stop, trust me, rather it is to have a job or doing volunteer work that helps people in any way shape or form. That's using your skills to help others. If you, for example, were to produce 10 miracles of god and, heaven forbid, one of the precious souls would run off the rails and kill me or another member of society, does that mean you have contributed to society? Not quite. Gays can and do contribute to society in many ways. You can't really escape this any furthur unless you want me to provide actual references to a gay person who has contributed to society but I think many people here would accept that there are many of them and that they are not all government leeches who have no jobs.

In any detail would be subjective but there are electron microscope pictures out there (there's one in my uni text book for example) which clearly distinguishes two elements [in an ionic compound, I think] as bumps of different colours. What I'm getting as is that we will likely never see atoms in real life in perfect detail as light itself is emitted from excited electrons absorbing and emitting varies quanta of energy. What we see as human beings is the collection of a rediculous number of photons and I'd wager seeing say, a collection of 20 photons, is impossible to the human eye.

While I'm strapped for time at the moment, there is evidence out there that atoms do exist and no one doubts it. Some of the evidences and phisics side of things can get complicated and I don't pretend to understand all of it. I have studied chemistry for 2 years at a highschool level and a few weeks thus far at university level. I'd say your concernes are a tad misplaced or in other words there is nothing to suggest that matter is not made of atoms. I'd be interested to hear any evidence you could gather which reftues atmic theory though; good luck finding any if you do try.

Well - considering the kid hadn't attempted to attack the officers - none of their lives were in immediate damage; shooting as an uncalled for action. Plenty of other options for those situations. I read over the article and I agree. Couldn't the officers have just shot him in his arm, in a way that with immediate medical attention, he could've not died, but lost his arm? That seems like a more fitting way to deal with him. Cops are trained for body shots only I believe. I was of the same opinion as you untill I realised it reduces chances of missing the target or potentially hitting a by-stander. Movies plant the image in your brain and you go with it like I did. In other words don't believe everything you see in the movies.