warri0r45

Don't forget unquestioning virtuous faith. I know not eveyone is like carlin or defender, Reb, but I can't help but be annoyed that any human being is like them. Whatever way you look at it, it would be hard to deny that we were created to be questioning and logical beings. Going against that is like saying god made a mistake.

levitcus 20:13 homosexuality is wrong so this army guy is totally right in saying wut he did. homosezuals should not be in the army. they should not be in society. Can you do me a favour and think for yourself? try and come up with reasons why you have such a viewpoint without using a book.

You again? You can believe what you do all you like. The science in evolution is sound at worst and isn't automatically false because you say so.

:lol: Scotland = :notalk: Australia = 8-)

So you're saying you can only possibly contribute to society if you reproduce? As people have said before, gays can be doctors, nurses, aged care workers, scientists or anything that, by nature of the occupation, contributes to society. We don't need more human beings on this planet and reproducing is far from an automatic tick in the contribution box. It can actually be detrimental to a community if a mother has 10 kids and relies on welfare. As Bill hicks once said (I'm beginning to find you can apply Hicks' comedy to anything) "We're a virus with f****** shoes, man." :lol: :P

Exactly, why would a Republican government destroy the headquarters and offices of corporations like Morgan Stanley, Fiduciary Trust, Cantor Fitzgerald, Marsh USA, Bank of America, AON, Fuji Bank, Salomon Smith Barney (Now Citigroup), etc. "for a reason to go to war" lol If that were at all true then it would be hands down the sickest and most demonistic thing I have ever heard of in my entire life.

Alot of people will say this is stupid, but it's actually an idea I agree with. You only live once, and certain things are worth experiencing. Reminds me of a Bill Hicks bit. A good idea in my opinion to sort out the drug problem is to have it regulated. What I mean is that you make drugs legal but every individual who signs up to the database can only get a specified amount of a pharmecutical grade drug. Supposedly, this would cut down the illegal drug trade immensely (by making prices at these pharmacies cheaper than street price) as long as you add in tougher scentences for drug dealers and anyone dealing to under 18's. This would make the risk factor for illegal trade significantly higher and therefore raise prices in the illegal trade.

Plug the lyrics into google and you should be able to find the title from some of the result pages.

Your friends said METALLICA were emo? They clearly have no idea about music whatsoever.

I think it may be any light but photosynthesis happens at a faster rate in blue due to it's higher frequency.

Perhaps you could elaborate?

That was so intriguing. Homosexuals should get to do whatever straight people get to do. It's simple logic. do straight people shower with women? no? k thx bye That was [developmentally delayed]. I'm serious - are you 12? where is your argument against that? i'm 18...but i can tell you what...i don't want a homosexual man checking me out in the shower whether he will go through with his fantasies or not. i would feel uncomfortable with him just being there... it's simple logic...as you would say...do men get to shower with women? NO! You are a homophobe. You think all the gays are going to gang up on you in the shower like animals and pack rape you?

Smoking or drinking Dr. pepper is personal choice, same as taking drugs. Not everyone assumes that something is healthy if it dosen't directly harm them.

I'd tend to agree given certain circumstances i.e. living in the western world. The big post of mine on the first page goes over a few possible scenarios. Tell me what you think if you have a look. :anxious:

As much as presents under your tree on christmas morn is proof that Santa is real. Fact - The amount of presents under your christmas tree is directly proportional to how much positive karma you have. :anxious:

Maybe that's because science is all about discovering what is "technically" correct. ~Parabola~ Science isn't about 'winning' either. ~Warri0r~

No one eats it? I heard in one U.S. state, they have an annual road kill cook off. I can't say I was surprised by it.

I say legalise, tax and regulate like hell, but politicians are to concerned with saving thier own tails and vote grabbing to do anything drastic.

Then enlighten us with your infinite wisdom.

Totally happened. The shooter tied the bullet to a string and tied the string to the gun. When fired, it went through JFK, reached it's tension point and snapped back and hit again! And for those of you who think the string would have broke - Pfft. It was a magic string. No, no NO!! Guys, you've got it all wrong! What actually happened was that the gun uhh, Oswald, uhh shot at the leaves and they, uhh, echoed and uhh, Jackie, uhh, no, John heard the echo and uhh, turned his head to Jackie and asked what it was and then he was hit and uhh. Honey, what time's american gladiators on? Go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Yeah, that's exactly how it happened. =P~ :anxious:

I'm curious why you would feel the need to bring religion into it. Yes, you do 'think' you know where you're going because you can never know what god is thinking. By being 100% certain that you will go to heavan, you're basically comparing yourself to jesus christ. You saying you know something which totally requires faith is like me saying I know I am Napolean. Like Bill Hicks said, 'beliefs are neat, some people believe they are Napolean, but don't go around pretending like it's the truth.' :lol: There's something so universal and true about Bill Hicks' comedy that I've been quoting him a bit lately. :lol: :P He was the greatest, afterall. :P Theres a reason why the word belief is not called evidence. However, I have stepped over to "believing" I will go to heaven to "knowing" I will go reguardless of faithless and negative comments. ~Defender~ Yes, "knowing." You missed the point. You're acting like you know you will go to heaven, which is like saying you are sinless, which is like saying you are god. Which means you are wrong.

Any hardore/screamo which isn't whiney and has a good guitar melody and flowing drums. Any shred of punk/emo style lyrics or singing and I will cringe. I'm not really ashamed but this is probably one of the more odd peculiarities of my music taste. Some other less heavy metal (my main taste) artists I like would be Jeff Buckey, Gomez and the John Butler Trio. I don't think I would ever actually be ashamed of a particular peculiarity in my tastes of music though.

I'll skip all of that previous rubbish and come stright back to the poster who was on topic. :) Yes, you are correct, science is not the truth and it can theoretically never uncover 100% truth. I totally agree with that, but given those limits, science dosen't try to uncover 100% undeniable proof. Some people may wonder why science is not 100% foolproof. Well, I suppose it's because we are human beings and are (evolutionarily or divinely) cursed with imperfection. Does that make science any less credible? No, it's the best system we can possibly have due to the objectivity and accountability it posesses. Some people, such as defender, will argue it's 'man's best guess', implying it's no more than guesswork. Unbeknownst to him, it's the best thing we have to uncover truth, yes, even better than the bible. Here's a shocker - most of the people in this world aren't Christians. Yep, that's right. But most people in this world do use scientifically tried and tested (whether this science be performed by Dr. Smith or tribe leader Mugumbo) methods of agriculture, healthcare, engineering etc. It's the best thing we have, as physical, limited human beings. What you believe is up to you and I of all people have no problem with that, but substituting the supernatural for the natural is and will always be counter productive and against all (god given or evolution given) logic, deductive reasoning, problem solving etc. If you're a theist, science is a gift from god. The most precious gift given to uncover this incredible world. Thankfully some people, such as Baron, decide not to substitute science with the supernatural, rather let them both coincide, as I believe they are meant to.

Do you agree with what lordkrohn1626 says: Obviously? He's right. There is no evidence for the flood. Or, like I said, for any of the Bible's claims for that matter. Then why is the lack of fossils/evidence a problem when it comes to the Bible and Noah's Ark, and not a problem when you're talking about macroevolution? Well, to begin with, evolution has many more evidences and logicality besides the fossil record. Secondly, the fossil record for evolution is sufficient to suggest a common trend, where the fossil record for the flood is basically non existant. There may be a large number of fossils in one area, but that is far from a dense layer of fossils all in the same rock layer around the entire world i.e. there is no such thing. Thirdly, the fact that the fossil record for evolution has gaps is beside the point as all of the current fossil record coincides with evolutionary theory. Compare that to the fossil record for the flood and it's not even a contest.

Awesome clean intro. :) Jeff Buckley - Mojo pin.